Appeal 6002111

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the application form. However as ‘Permission in Principle for’ is not an act of development, I have removed this element.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or ‘permission in principle’ stage) (PIP) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second (‘technical details consent’ stage) (TDC) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if PIP is granted.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development.

The appeal site is an undeveloped area of land surrounded by housing and within an established residential area. Despite its sloping topography, interested parties indicate that the appeal site has, and is informally used by members of the public as open space and I observed small items of children’s play equipment and bicycles on the site. However, it is privately owned, with the appellant stating any use by the public is unauthorised, whilst it is also not formally designated as an area of public open space within the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan (LP) or Plymouth Green Space Strategy.

Nevertheless, LP Policy DEV27 seeks to protect and support a diverse and multi-functional network of green space. ‘Green open space’ is not defined within LP Policy DEV27 and the Policy does not state that open space has to be in public ownership or that mechanisms should be in place to ensure public access. However, LP paragraph 6.99 clarifies that LP Policy DEV27 relates to both sites with specific designation and undesignated green spaces and outlines that green open spaces are an integral part of sustainable communities.

The appeal site is currently an open and green space and whilst not a formal accessible open or play space, does, due to its size and surrounding layout of dwellings being arranged around the site and facing inwards, provide an important focal point to the area. Moreover, despite two designated areas of public open space as shown within the LP being within 400m of the appeal site, the appeal site plays a central role as a green space that provides planned for visual relief to built-form. As such it creates a spacious character that positively contributes to the appearance and distinctiveness of the area and provides a valuable visual amenity to residents and the public, even if access were to be prevented.

Although the appeal relates to PIP, I must be satisfied at this initial stage that the amount of development proposed could feasibly be accommodated at the appeal site having regard to, amongst other things, the character and appearance of the area and highway safety. As the application was for PIP, only illustrative details are before me which indicate linear development running across the site.

Given the area is predominantly residential, further dwellings would not be unexpected. However, irrespective of design, appearance and landscaping, the proposal would inevitably result in the introduction of prominent built form. This would fundamentally and significantly change the pattern of development of the estate, resulting in the harmful loss of the existing spacious character, and a likely discordant and incongruous spatial relationship with existing dwellings, the layout of which directly address the appeal site as opposed to having a highway frontage.

The proposal is for ‘up to’ 6 dwellings. Nevertheless, given the importance of the openness of the appeal site to the character of the surrounding area, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that residential built form of a lesser quantum would be able to ensure adequate openness of the site so as to retain the appeal site as a focal point and its associated visual amenity.

Therefore, notwithstanding TDC and a potentially lower number of dwellings, for the reasons given above, I find the harm to the character and appearance of the area would still be significant.

[address] is a residential cul-de-sac with relatively low vehicle speeds (85th percentile speed of southbound vehicles was found to be 10mph, whilst the speed of northbound vehicles was found to be 16mph within the appellants Highway Appeal Statement1 (HAS)), it also serves [name] of England School. I conducted my site visit during school drop-off, and although a snapshot in time, I observed vehicular activity is higher than to be expected within a residential area, as well as high pedestrian activity. If follows that similar conditions would arise during pick up times. 1 [name] 2025

Moreover on-street parking occurs in various areas along [address], which can result in vehicles travelling on the opposing side of carriage ways, or indeed lost visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles at junctions. Even if the full 6 dwellings were to come forward at TDC stage, the HAS states, and has not been refuted by the Council, the proposal would result in 30-36 two-way movements per day in addition to those associated with existing residential dwellings and the school.

Indicative plans indicate that reduced visibility splays could be provided which are appropriate for speeds found in the speed survey and which are compliant to Manual for Streets, without reliance on third party land.

I acknowledge interested parties and the [name] concerns in relation to highway safety and size of splays that could be required. However, given the additional vehicular movements likely to be associated with the proposal, character of the highway, size of the appeal site, geometry, topography and associated highway frontage, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that a safe access solution cannot be achieved at TDC.

Detailed provision of sight lines and appropriate visibility splays is a matter for TDC. It would be open to the Council to refuse any application which did not achieve safe access for the final number of dwellings proposed, or any proposal that would have severe cumulative impacts on the road network.

Consequently, at this PIP stage, I find access and highway safety is not determinative and there is no associated conflict with LP Policy DEV29 which seeks, amongst other things, to provide safe and satisfactory traffic movement and vehicular access to and within sites. However, I conclude that due to the effect to the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development. The proposal is contrary to LP policies DEV20 and DEV27. These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure development positively contributes to townscape and landscape, protect and improve the quality of the built environment, and protect undesignated green spaces.

Fencing could be erected at the site under permitted development rights to enclose the land and reinforce the lack of accessibility to the public. Given the potential erection of fencing has been raised by the appellant, I consider that there is a real prospect of this fallback development taking place.

However, fencing adjacent a highway erected under permitted development rights could not exceed 1m in height, and even if fencing were to be erected within the site of up to 2m, this would result in notably lesser built form and height than residential development. As such, I find that this fallback would have a notably lesser impact on the spaciousness and character and appearance of the area than the appeal proposal. As a result, the potential for the permitted development fallback to be implemented is a matter that carries modest weight.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites, with the appellant stating, and not refuted by the Council, that the supply is 2.33 years. As such, Paragraph 11 d)ii of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) is engaged.

The proposal would achieve an increase in housing supply in an area with an acknowledged lack of housing provision and in an area with good access to services and facilities and sustainable transport solutions. However, even noting the Council’s housing land supply position, due to the scope and small scale of the proposal for up to 6 dwellings, this benefit attracts only modest weight.

Additionally, the proposal would provide other modest short term economic benefits from the construction of the proposal and further modest economic and social benefits from the future occupation of the dwellings and associated support of local services and facilities.

However, the proposal would conflict with [name] DEV20 and DEV27, and the development plan as a whole. These policies are broadly consistent with the Frameworks aims of achieving well designed places which add to the overall quality of the area, are visually attractive due to layout and are sympathetic to local character. As such, and due to the significant degree of harm I have identified, I give the conflict with these policies significant weight.

The Framework acknowledges that small sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirements of the area, and the proposal would align with the objectives of the Framework which seek to significantly boost housing supply and promote the effective use of land. However, I have found the contribution to housing supply to be a modest benefit alongside other modest benefits. Consequently, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would not represent sustainable development.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. No material considerations, individually or cumulatively, indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.