Appeal 6002293

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the safety of highway users having regard to the visibility of the access; • whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of the statutory framework for [name] (BNG); and, • whether or not the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to internal space.

The appeal site is located at the corner of [site address] and [address]. It comprises an existing dwelling, [site address] [site address] , and its garden area, which extends to the rear and western side of the building. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, characterised by two-storey dwellings arranged in semi-detached pairs or short terraces, typically with frontage parking. Plot widths along this part of [site address] are broadly consistent, creating a regular rhythm to the street scene. The set-back of no. [site address] from [address] provides a sense of openness at the junction, forming a visual break that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

In this context, the appeal site in its current form makes a positive contribution to the area. The proposed subdivision of the plot would result in two narrower plots that would contrast with the prevailing pattern of development. Although the proposed dwelling would take some design cues from No. [site address] , its detached form would be at odds with the established semi-detached arrangement in this part of [site address] .

The proposed access and parking, taken from [address], would also conflict with the established pattern, where development is generally served by frontage parking accessed from [site address] . This would further erode the coherence of the existing layout.

Moreover, the siting of the proposed dwelling across the plot width would diminish the openness currently experienced at the junction of [site address] and [address]. Despite the inclusion of front and rear garden areas, the development would erode the site’s role as a visual buffer between built development.

The cumulative effect of the reduced plot width, constrained layout and siting close to [address] would cause the development to appear shoehorned into the site. Consequently, the proposal would disrupt the established pattern and layout of development in the area.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies EN1 and H13 of the Local Plan 2004 (the LP) and Core Policy 8 of the [name] 2008 (the CS). Taken together, these policies seek, amongst other things, high quality design and for new dwellings to be in keeping with the scale, density and layout of the existing area.

The vehicle access to the site would be from [address]. The submitted plans do not show any detail pertaining to access visibility splays from the proposed access.

The proposed two metre tall fence along the boundary of the site with [address] is likely to restrict driver’s views towards the north. Additionally, to the south of the proposed access, I saw a tall, dense hedge and mature tree which would also likely restrict visibility. This vegetation is outside of the red line boundary of the appeal site. As such, I cannot be certain that it would be in the control of the appellant to achieve suitable visibility to the south of the proposed access.

In this context, in the absence of detailed plans showing how suitable visibility would be achieved, I am not satisfied that the proposed vehicle access would not be harmful to the safety of highway users.

I saw that vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the site were generally low and vehicle movements were infrequent, at the time of my site visit during a weekday morning. Although my visit can only represent a snapshot in time, there is nothing before me to suggest that what I observed was not typical for the time of day. The appellant also asserts that there is no recorded evidence of accidents on [address] or at the junction with [address], although this is not further substantiated. Nonetheless, these considerations do not negate the need for adequate visibility to be demonstrated at the vehicular access to the site.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the safety of highway users having regard to the visibility of the access. It would therefore conflict with CS Core Policy 7 which seeks for development proposals to make appropriate provisions for improving road safety. It would also conflict with paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that development should be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The BNG regime requires development to provide a minimum of 10% BNG, unless it meets an exception set out in the statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). One of those exemptions is self build and custom build (SBCB) housing development as defined in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. The appellant relies upon this exemption in relation to the appeal scheme and on that basis has not provided the minimum information that would otherwise be required in relation to BNG.

The appellant indicates it is their intention for the proposed dwelling to be SBCB on the planning application form. However, there is no appropriate mechanism, such as a legal agreement, in place to ensure that the dwelling would be built and remain for an appropriate time period as a SBCB dwelling for the appellant, in compliance with the statutory definition.

It is suggested that the dwelling could be secured as SBCB via a planning condition. While the detailed wording of a suitable condition has not been provided, I am not satisfied that a condition restricting the dwelling to self-build would meet the relevant tests for conditions, including that it would be enforceable. Therefore, there is no assurance that the proposed dwelling would be a SBCB property and so meet the relevant exception for BNG in this instance.

Alternatively, the appellant suggests that BNG could be secured by a condition. However, there is no evidence before me that a 10% net gain could be achieved at the site. Moreover, I have not been provided with a suitably worded condition in this regard. In the absence of detailed evidence in respect of BNG, I am not satisfied that a planning condition would be sufficiently precise and enforceable.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not satisfy the requirements of the statutory framework for BNG. As such, the proposal conflicts with Core Policy 9 of the CS and paragraph 187 of the Framework, which, taken together, require development to enhance and preserve the natural environment, including providing net gains for biodiversity.

The nationally described space standards (NDSS) sets out the technical standards for new dwellings. The Council’s Reason for Refusal 1 states that the internal floorspace of the dwelling would fall short of the requirements set out in the NDSS thereby resulting in cramped internal space for future occupiers.

Planning Practice Guidance states that where a local planning authority wishes to require an internal space standard, they should only do so by reference in their Local Plan to the NDSS1. There is no reference, in the local policies submitted as part of this appeal, to the NDSS. The NDSS is therefore not part of the 1 Paragraph: 018 [name]: [site address] -[phone] development plan and there is no policy requirement for compliance. While it provides a useful benchmark, it is not determinative.

In this case, despite the internal floor area falling below the NDSS, the internal layout and configuration of the accommodation would be functional. Each habitable room would be of a reasonable size served by windows providing outlook, daylight and sunlight.

Accordingly, I find the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal space. Reason for Refusal 1 cites conflict with [name] 1, 4 and 8 of the CS and [name] EN1 and H13 of the LP. Taken together, these policies set out the Council’s approach to the location and appearance of new housing. However, none of the policies makes specific provision for internal space standards for dwellings. Accordingly, I find no direct conflict with the cited policies.

One dwelling would make a limited contribution to the supply of housing and the support that its construction and future occupancy would provide to construction employment, and the local economy would be limited.

I appreciate that the proposal may otherwise comply with development plan requirements with respect to the provision of outdoor amenity space, vehicle parking and cycle parking. Nevertheless, these are neutral points and so they do not outweigh the harm identified above.

I have found that the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. The proposal would, nonetheless, conflict with [name] EN1 and H13 as well as Core Policy 7, Core Policy 8 and Core Policy 9 of the CS with respect to highway safety, BNG and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Paragraph 232 of the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this respect, the Framework indicates new development should be sympathetic to local character and expects development proposals to ensure safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. The Framework also expects development to provide net gains for biodiversity. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and the aforementioned policies should be given significant weight in this appeal.

The Council has not raised objection in terms of the site location, and I have no reason, based on the evidence before me, to reach an alternative conclusion. The Framework outlines support for bringing forward small and medium sized sites, acknowledging that they can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirements of an area.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that paragraph 11d) is engaged.

Paragraph 11 d) ii) states planning permission should be granted unless 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 to ensure safe and suitable access and secure well designed places.

The Council has not specified the extent of its shortfall, however, as described above, the benefits of 1 dwelling would be limited, even taking into account the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting housing land supply. Consequently, the proposal’s harm to the character and appearance of the area, its failure to demonstrate a safe and secure vehicular access and its failure to satisfy the requirements of the statutory framework for BNG would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.