Appeal 6002048

The appeal is dismissed.

My attention has been drawn to an Emerging Local Plan. Given the early stage of the process for this plan, and the level of unknown objections, I have afforded it limited weight.

The main issues are: - the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, in particular in regard to the effect of the loss of protected trees; and - the effect of the proposal on highway safety, including in relation to the provision of visibility splays, refuse collection arrangements and whether the development makes adequate provision for car parking.

Oklahoma is a substantial detached chalet bungalow occupying a spacious plot. The dwelling is set back from [address] behind a thick screen of vegetation, comprising a native hedge with oak, beech and hazel trees. These trees are highly visible from the public realm along [address], and, due to their height, age and screening effect, contribute positively to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

Dwellings in the surrounding area comprise a mixture of dwelling forms and sizes which are set back from the highway behind mature planting. This, coupled with planting in front gardens and the dense mature vegetation which lines the northern side of [address], results in a spacious and verdant character and appearance to the area to which the site makes a positive contribution.

The proposal is for the erection of 5 dwellings following the demolition of the host property. To facilitate the proposal a new 5m wide access would be created to the west of the existing access. Two trees to the site frontage and part of the hedge would be removed to facilitate the proposed access. This comprises a mature hazel tree and an early mature oak tree, identified as trees T15 and T16 in the existing tree schedule1.

During the course of the planning application the Council made and later confirmed a Tree Preservation Order 2 (TPO) covering the trees at the site frontage and a silver birch tree in the southwest corner of the site. TPOs offer a mechanism for providing legal protection to trees of significant amenity value, particularly where they are considered to be under threat. I have given due consideration to the appellant’s comments on the value of the trees covered by the TPO. Regardless of whether these trees merit protection by a TPO, as part of the row of trees to the site frontage they have a good level of group amenity value and make a strong contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The trees which would be removed to facilitate the proposal both have an estimated remaining contribution of 20+ years and their loss would reduce the positive contribution made by the site to the street scene, resulting in harm to the verdant character and appearance of the area. Whilst replacement planting would be secured, resulting in a net gain in tree provision overall, this would take some time to establish and many years to reach the height and maturity of the protected trees that would be removed. The provision of replacement trees would thus fail to mitigate for or justify the removal of the protected trees.

The removal of the trees to facilitate the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with those aims of Havant Borough Core Strategy (2011) (CS) policies CS16 and DM8 which state that development will only be permitted where it protects and enhances local habitats and landscape distinctiveness including protecting natural features of nature conservation and/or amenity importance such as trees. I also find conflict with the Havant Borough Council Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (DGSPD) which has similar aims. Conflict also arises with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which recognises the important contribution made by trees to the character and quality of urban environments. Highway safety

The site is accessed off [address] which is the subject of a 30mph speed limit and does not have a formal footway provision. The limited width of the lane, coupled with the mature boundary planting and regular driveway accesses to dwellings limits the capacity for on-street parking on the lane. At my mid-morning site visit traffic levels on the lane were low. Whilst this is a snapshot in time, there is nonetheless nothing in the evidence before me which indicates that these observations are atypical of the area. 1 South Downs Ecology, Version 2, 19 November 2024 2 Ref 2149

The appellant carried out 2 7-day [name] surveys which recorded average vehicle speeds on [address] of 22.8mph westbound and 17.4mph eastbound. When adjusted to account for the wet weather speeds recorded on 2 of those days, the recorded speeds require visibility splays measuring 31m in the primary direction (east) and 21m in the secondary direction (west).

The land to the north of [address] forms part of a masterplan area for residential development and it is understood that, as part of these masterplan proposals, [address] will be widened to 5.7m, vegetation removed and a new footway laid, which the Council suggest would likely encourage higher vehicular speeds than those recorded. It is understood that the outline application 3 for the residential development has been withdrawn and there is no certainty these improvement works will be implemented. Even if these works were implemented, there is no particular evidence before me that the highway improvements would result in traffic speeds of 30mph. I have been presented with no compelling evidence that the visibility splays should not be based on the observed traffic speeds adjusted to account for wet weather.

The submitted visibility splays show that, to achieve the required visibility in the primary direction the development would require the tree canopies to the 2 trees to the east to be kept and maintained to above 2m in height. These trees are located on land outside of the appellant’s control and, whilst avoiding the tree trunks, nonetheless an agreement with the neighbouring landowner to keep the canopies above 2m to maintain this visibility in perpetuity would be needed. This means that the development would be dependent on the actions of a third party. I have been presented with no compelling reason to find that the Council’s guidance on visibility splays relates only to proposed planting.

The appellant states that these trees are located within the highway boundary and the main parties disagree on whether the Highway Authority (HA) has any rights over this land and powers to remove the cause of any visibility obstruction under Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980. Even if the HA did have the power to maintain the tree canopies in order to provide the necessary visibility, there is no guarantee that they would invoke these powers. The provision and maintenance of the visibility splay is therefore a matter over which the appellant has little to no control which brings into question whether the visibility splay would be available at all times. This casts doubt over whether the development could provide a safe and suitable access and introduces the potential for conflict between road uses with potential knock-on implications for highway safety.

The appellant submits that the trees already pose a risk to public health given their proximity to the existing site access and the associated restrictions on visibility. Nonetheless, the proposal would see a net gain of 4 dwellings and the associated intensification of the use of the access would bring with it the increased potential for conflicts as a result of compromised visibility.

Consistent with current refuse collection arrangements, the development would be serviced from the carriageway on [address] for refuse collection, and bins would be collected from a refuse collection point within the site boundary. The number of refuse collection vehicles would remain the same as at present, and, 3 APP/21/00893 whilst the development would result in an increase in refuse vehicle dwell time, this would be minimal given the limited increase in occupation.

The evidence before me4 indicates that adequate forward visibility would be achieved for the design speed of 17.4mph for vehicles approaching from the left, with sufficient space for a car to pass a refuse vehicle stationed at the site entrance within 4.5m of the site access. Given this, and the relatively low recorded volumes of traffic on [address], the potential for conflict between vehicles arising during refuse collection would be low. I therefore find that the kerbside refuse collection arrangements would be acceptable and would not compromise the safe operation of the highway network.

The development would comprise 3no 4-bedroom dwellings and 2no 3-bedroom dwellings. The Havant Borough Council Parking Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (PSPD) states that 3 bed units should have a minimum of 2 parking spaces and 4+ bed units a minimum of 3 parking spaces. The PSPD goes on to state that, with the exception of small residential developments, an additional 20% of unallocated parking for visitors should be accommodated. The PSPD doesn’t define a ‘small development’. I have been presented with no evidence that a development of 5 dwellings should not be classed as a small development. Thus, there is no compelling evidence that the development would require the provision of unallocated visitor parking. This results in the requirement for 13 parking spaces across the development and a shortfall of one car parking space.

The appellant’s submission includes a plan which indicates 2 locations in which additional on-site car parking capacity could be achieved. In light of this, and given the limited extent of the shortfall, I am satisfied that the development makes adequate provision for car parking and that the development would not result in vehicles overspilling onto [address] and parking on grass verges. Based on the evidence before me the on-site additional capacity would not preclude the use of the turning area by a fire tender.

I have found that the proposal makes adequate provision for car parking and that the refuse collection arrangements would not compromise the safe operation of the highway network. In regard to this main issue, I therefore find no conflict with those aims of CS policies CS16, DM8 and DM13 which require that development is designed to a high standard and provides car parking in accordance with the standards in the PSPD. I find no conflict with the PSPD, the aims of which are set out above.

Nonetheless, the delivery of adequate visibility is dependent on third party land, which brings into question whether a safe and suitable access would be achieved and maintained for the lifetime of the development. Without this certainty, the safety of users of the proposal and [address] would be prejudiced, resulting in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Conflict therefore arises with those aims of CS policy CS20 which seek to ensure that development provides transport management measures to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network. I also find conflict with the Framework which requires that developments 4 Drawing 143.0034-0010 Revision P01 should create places that are safe and which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

Two of the Council’s reasons for refusal related to the development’s effect on the [name]. To address the development’s effect on the [name] sites in relation to water quality and recreational disturbance the appellant has provided a [name] (UU) dated 25 September 2025 which includes contributions towards the [name] and nitrate mitigation. The Council have commented that they are satisfied that the UU addresses these 2 reasons for refusal. However, as I have found harm in relation to the main issues, it is not necessary in this instance to undertake an appropriate assessment to consider the development’s effect on the European sites.

The Council raised no objection to the appearance of the dwellings or the development’s impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in relation to light levels, outlook, noise disturbance and privacy. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to reach a different view. The dwellings would meet the Government’s Nationally Described Space Standards and future occupiers would be afforded adequate private amenity space and cycle parking. Nonetheless, compliance with the relevant development plan policies on these matters would be required in any case, therefore these matters weigh neutrally, rather than in favour of the proposal.

The Council confirms that it is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. As the proposal involves the provision of housing, footnote 8 of the Framework indicates the most important policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date and paragraph 11d) ii. of the Framework is engaged. This requires that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards housing supply on a small site within the development boundary with good access to facilities and public transport. The dwellings would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. Factoring in the extent of the shortfall, this attracts significant weight in favour of the development. There would be short-term economic benefits associated with the construction works, and contributions made by future occupiers to the local economy in the longer-term, as well as Council tax revenues. The development would make provision for [name] and ecological enhancements. These matters attract moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

On the other hand, I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Chapter 12 of the Framework sets out that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and Chapter 9 of the Framework sets out that proposals should ensure that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users. I give significant weight to the conflict with the development plan policies in these areas.

Thus, whilst the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the delivery of 4 additional dwellings, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Thus, the proposal would not constitute a sustainable form of development in terms of the Framework and does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.