Appeal 6002302

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by Bracknell Forest Borough Council against Bracknell Development Ltd. This application is the subject of a separate

Seven drawings that were not the basis of the Council’s decision have been submitted with this appeal. The changes on these drawings include an internal door and ramp, other reconfigurations also inside the proposed building, and, privacy screens at balconies to the rear and standard sized windows on the east flank of the building. Additional details, analysing vehicle swept paths to the rear of the property, has also been submitted.

Guidance advises that appeals should be determined on the basis of the original application. However, the amendments to the drawings have not fundamentally changed the development proposed at the application stage. Moreover, the minor nature of the changes are matters which could be easily addressed by condition. Addressing the swept path analysis, this is based on the original layouts, and no substantive changes are indicated at this aspect of the development. Given the nature of these changes and the new details, even considered cumulative they do not result in a fundamentally different application.

In addition to these amendments not introducing substantive changes, there has been opportunity in the appeal process for the Council and interested parties to comment on this matter. For the reasons stated, I find that considering these amended drawings in this appeal has not led to procedural unfairness. Accordingly, I have taken these new drawings into account in this decision.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would make appropriate provision for affordable housing in accordance with local policy; • The effect of the proposal on the integrity of the Thames Heath Basin Special Protection Area; • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], having regard to privacy; • Whether the new residential units would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants having regard to outlook and privacy; and • Whether the proposal would provide safe and suitable access and adequate parking provision, having regard to highway safety and local policy.

Policy LP 16 of the Bracknell Forest Local Plan(Local Plan) requires, on sites of 10 dwellings or more, that 35% of the new homes will be affordable. This Policy also states that applicants may bring forward a viability assessment to be accompanied by an independently produced open book financial appraisal to justify any relaxation of this requirement.

A Financial Viability Assessment (FVA 2023) by [name] 106 (AH106), submitted at the application stage, takes account of a 25% affordable housing policy requirement of the previous local plan. For this assessment, the value of the proposed residential units was based on just one comparative example in the local area, [address]. The FVA 2023 concluded that the new unit values would be lower than those existing dwellings.

It could be argued that those existing units are superior to those proposed in this case as they have allocated parking. However, the evidence points to the [address] dwellings being affordable shared ownership units, and the AH106 did not identify any open market comparatives in the FVA 2023. Moreover, no account appears to be taken of the premium that new homes can attract. The 7% reduction of the value of the [address] units that was applied to the proposed units for this assessment would appear somewhat of an underestimate in my view given these factors.

The Council’s HCA appraisal model was completed at that time, and this included some details about commercial use values. But the FVA 2023 includes limited information about how the value of the redeveloped commercial units was established. I find the assessment lacks transparency in this regard. Also, the developers’ return applied in the FVA 2023 is towards the top end of that suggested in national guidance. No sensitivity testing was carried out with regards a more conservative level of profit. The FVA 2023 concluded that the provision of affordable units would be unviable in this proposed development, but this is based on a potentially low unit value and high developers’ return.

BPS’ independent review questioned the FVA 2023 conclusions, particularly with regards the level of loss that was identified for this project. Given the factors outlined above I am also unpersuaded that this evidence demonstrates that the proposal could not work towards being policy compliant with regards providing at least some affordable units at the development.

The appellant has submitted further information on viability in this appeal process, prepared by S106 Management. The Council indicate that this should have been subject to independent review in line with local policy. The appellant did not object to this, but despite there being sufficient time in this appeal process, the review was not commissioned.

This aside, the S106 Management report is presented as an update to the FVA

The report accepts the baseline adopted by BPS and unlike the FVA 2023, provides detail about the commercial aspect of the proposal. Account is taken of the other financial contributions that in the Council’s view would make this proposal policy compliant with regards infrastructure policy and Habitats Regulations. Also, the report reassesses the potential comparatives that guide the expected value of the proposed units and adopts standardised inputs expected in FVAs.

However, while the S106 Management report takes account of relevant Local Plan policies adopted since the original application was submitted, there appears no reference to the viability assessment that was examined in the local plan process and that guided the current local affordable housing policy. In this regard the approach taken by the appellant does not accord with Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which requires assessments refer back to the viability assessment that informed the plan.

This proposal is on an unallocated site. However, no compelling evidence has been advanced to demonstrate that the appeal site is wholly different from the allocated sites in the town centre which have been assessed through the local plan process as viable with an affordable housing element. Moreover, the Local Plan has been adopted relatively recently, and I find no persuasive evidence that the challenges for developers in delivering this type of development has significantly changed in the intervening period between plan adoption and now.

Indeed, although S106 Management concludes that the viability position of the project has significantly deteriorated since BPS’ review in 2023, the report indicates while costs have increased to over 4%, values of comparable units have also increased over 3% during this time. Although the development would now offer fewer units than that originally assessed, this is only a small reduction in units and the slightly lower value that may result from this would be balanced by the reduce build costs. Also, once again, the assumed developers’ return for this report was towards the higher end of that advised by PPG.

Similar to the FVA 2023, the S106 Management report concludes that this development would result in a significant loss even without any affordable housing provision. This begs the inevitable question why the appellant would wish to proceed on this basis. The written evidence suggests that this is not a matter for the decision maker. But in my view certainty that the development could be delivered promptly is a matter that needs to be factored into the

Some clarity on this matter was provided by the appellant at the hearing. It was stated that the ongoing cost of the undeveloped property would be a greater financial burden to the appellant than the losses that would be initially incurred when carrying out this development. It was also indicated that the appellant’s preferred strategy was to rent the new units and recoup costs over a period of time.

This approach is not reflected in the viability assessments supporting this proposal. Moreover, in addition to the factors outlined above, the viability evidence submitted in the appeal appears focussed on reviewing assessment work carried out previously as opposed to forming a comprehensive FVA. This evidence lacks transparency in these regards. In my view, it fails to justify a relaxation of the local affordable housing requirement in this case. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with local affordable housing policy in this respect.

The appellant has, through this appeal process, offered a commuted sum to support affordable housing off site and to carry out a review of viability, once the development progresses, to establish whether the development could work towards being policy compliant with regards this matter. However, these are outcomes that could only be secured by a legal agreement. A draft legal agreement has been submitted and additional time following the hearing was allowed to finalise the deed. However, a properly executed legal agreement has not been submitted. Therefore, I have no certainty that these matters could be secured and accordingly they do not weigh in favour of this proposal.

In light of the above, I find that the proposal would not make appropriate provision for affordable housing in accordance with local policy. In this regard the proposal would conflict with LP 16 of the Local Plan.

The appeal site is in the zone of influence (ZoI) of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). The SPA habitats include open heathlands, scrub and woodlands which were once almost continuous, but are now fragmented by roads, urban development and farmland. These habitats support important breeding bird populations, including the nightjar and woodlark, both of which nest on the ground, often at the woodland/heathland edge, and Dartford warbler which nests in gorse.

As ground dwelling birds, these qualifying features of the [name] are particularly sensitive to disturbance from recreational activity and predation from pets. Evidence has found that recreational pressure threatens the conservation objectives of the SPA which is to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the [name].

As the Competent Authority in this case, in accordance with duties set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) , I have to be content that this proposal would not result in likely significant adverse effects on the integrity of this protected habitat. Regulation 63(1) requires a Competent Authority to make an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of any plan or project potentially affecting a site with regard to that site's conservation objectives.

The protected habitats are in unfavourable condition such that evidence shows that the increase of just one residential unit in the ZoI would have a likely significant adverse effect on the integrity of this habitat. This proposal would result in a significant increase in residential units and without mitigation this development would be unacceptable in terms of this planning matter.

The Council has adopted SPD, in consultation with Natural England which provides an updated avoidance and mitigation strategy to show how the adverse effects of development on the integrity of the [name] should be avoided and mitigated.

For proposals resulting in a net gain of dwellings in this area, developers will be required to make proportionate financial contributions towards Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces (SANGs) and [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) measures. In this Borough, these contributions would be secured by legal agreement. Natural England has been consulted on this matter and is content that subject to this mitigation being secured it does not object to the proposal.

The draft S106 legal agreement seeks to obligate those with an interest in the site to make the appropriate level of SANGs and SAMMs contributions, £185,356 and £21,873 respectively. However, the legal deed is not signed and dated and without a properly executed agreement I have no certainty that the mitigation necessary to make the development acceptable in this regard would be secured. Without this certainty, the development would likely have a significant adverse effect on the qualifying species and overall integrity of the SPA, when considered alone or in combination with other projects.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. In this regard the proposal would fail to accord with Policy LP 32 of the Local Plan.

The appeal site comprises one and two storey commercial buildings in the town centre. The front of these buildings overlook a pedestrian area, and the rear of the property is accessed via the [name] road. Although this setting is characterised by retail and commercial uses, neighbouring properties have been converted to residential units in recent years. This includes [address] to the rear of this part of the [address] and the [name] building on the west boundary of the appeal site. These existing residential units are apartments in multi storey blocks.

The current outlook for occupants in the rear apartments of [address] is over a carpark and the low rise buildings lining this part of the [address]. The Mi Flats appear to be the nearest residential units to [address], and although there are significant windows at the top floor of that building there is a good amount of separation between these two existing residential blocks. As such the residents of [address] are not particularly overlooked.

This proposal would replace the existing structures at the appeal site with a seven and eight storey building. While commercial uses would be retained at the lower floors, the new building would comprise residential units at the second floor and above.

The outlook from the new apartments, at the rear of the proposed building, would be predominately over the rear access of the property, the [address] C access road and the car park of the [name] beyond. [address] would be visible to the side of the new block such that it would not harmfully dominate the outlook from these new units.

As a new tall building with balconies the current outlook for occupants of [address] would be changed. However, as the new structure would be to the side of [address], the intervisibility between that existing building and the new apartments would be limited to oblique views. Moreover, the distance between the new and existing blocks would be at least 12 metres. Also, high screens are proposed on the side of the balconies at the rear of the new building, and this would further restrict the already angled view towards [address]. These features would minimise the perception that occupants in [address] are being overlooked by new residents of the proposed block.

The amount of separation between the two buildings would be somewhat shorter than that advised in local guidance. Be this as it may, the intention of the guidance is to protect living conditions. The distance between the existing and proposed buildings, combined with the offset position of the respective structures and the installation of screens (secured by condition) would ensure that existing occupants of [address] would continue to have an acceptable level of privacy when using their habitable rooms and balcony at the rear and the habitable rooms on the western side of that building.

The amended drawing submitted with this appeal shows standard size windows on the east flank elevation of the proposed building. These windows would serve bedrooms in the new units and would be the closest openings to [address] on this particular elevation. Moreover, these windows would provide a relatively direct outlook towards the protruding wing of that existing residential building. Unlike the proposed balconies and windows to the rear of the new building, these openings would be unscreened. Consequently, even with a good distance between the two blocks, residents of units at the rear wing of [address] would have an increased sense of being overlooked from these relatively large windows of the new building.

These amended windows are intended to improve the outlook from these proposed bedrooms, a matter that I will address in due course. This aside, the original drawings show small, high level windows on this east flank elevation of the proposed building, and this would minimise the scope for new residents to overlook the existing units at [address]. The privacy of residents of that existing block would be protected accordingly.

The introduction of a tall building could have adverse consequences for existing residents’ outlook. The new building would be built on the side boundary of the [name] block, and it would largely match the height of that neighbouring building. Most windows on the east elevation of the [name] are narrow and serve access areas rather than habitable rooms. The top storey of [name] does however have significant openings. However, there would be a sizeable gap between those existing windows and the side elevation of the new building such that occupants of those existing units would still enjoy a reasonable outlook over the town centre.

Also, as already stated, [address] is set to the side of the appeal site. As such, while the new tall building would be seen from that building, the existing relative openness that [address] residents currently experience would be largely unaffected by the new development. The proposal would not result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure in this regard. The new block would add to the density of built form in the area, but this would not be an unexpected outlook for residents living in this town centre. Existing residents’ outlook from the rear of [address] would remain reasonable and the development would not result in an unacceptable effect on living conditions in respect of this matter.

Neighbouring residents are concerned that the new block would restrict light reaching their homes. Addressing this matter, a Sunlight and Daylight Assessment applying BRE guidance and methodology was submitted with this proposal. The Assessment identified windows of the [name] and [address] that could be affected by this development, in terms of overshadowing.

The results of the Assessment showed, when applying the standard vertical sky component (VSC) test, that 99 of the effected 111 windows would retain 80% of their existing daylight or would have a proposed VSC greater than 27. The remaining 12 windows have been assessed using the “[name], in accordance with BRE guidance and this modelling showed that the effect of the proposal on daylight levels reaching those windows would also not fall below levels that the national guidance deems acceptable.

In terms of sunlight, the majority of neighbouring windows would retain at least 80% of their existing value under this scheme. The Assessment showed that the scheme would be compliant with BRE guidance in relation to sunlight impacts and no compelling evidence has been advanced to contradict this conclusion. I am therefore satisfied that this development would not have an unacceptable effect on neighbours’ living conditions, having regard to the matter adequate daylight and sunlight.

There is concern that the new development would generate noise that would disturb local residents. However, the proposal is mixed use and is in keeping with other mixed uses that already characterise this built up area. Sounds resulting from the new block would be similar to that which are currently experienced in this setting.

The scheme would require the demolition of structures in a tight high street terrace of buildings and the redevelopment of the site would be a major undertaking. The construction phase would therefore cause some disruption to local residents. However, this would be for a temporary period and would be mitigated by a [name] to be secured by condition. For the reasons outlined, I am content, subject to conditions, that the quality of life and health and well-being of existing residents would not be unduly harmed by this development during the construction phase or through the lifetime of the development.

In light of the above, I find that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], having regard to privacy. In this regard the proposal would accord with Policy LP 51 of the Local Plan. This Policy supports proposals that, amongst other matters, provide acceptable levels of privacy and that do not adversely affect amenity.

The one bedroom of the proposed units C on the second to fifth floor would have small high level windows. Also, to accord with mitigation identified in the Noise Assessment, these openings would be sealed. This is deemed necessary to ensure future occupants would not be disturbed by people using the terrace at the adjacent building. The status of that terrace is unclear, but images were presented at the hearing showing it being used as an outside seating area for a bar. Such activities could be a source of disturbance close to residential units. Therefore, I agree that this mitigation would be necessary to protect future occupants living conditions with regards that matter.

As already mentioned, the small windows on this east flank elevation would be necessary to prevent unacceptable overlooking of the [address] dwellings. The sole bedroom in the proposed units C would therefore have a limited outlook. However, the open plan living room of these units would have floor to ceiling windows, leading to balconies. As such future occupants of these flats would enjoy a sense of space and openness in their dwellings and this would compensate for the somewhat enclosed quality of the bedroom in these units.

High screens on the front of these balconies are proposed in the amended drawings. But 2 metres high screens on three sides of the balconies would considerably diminish the sense of openness described above. All aspects of these units would feel enclosed if this feature was to be included. Moreover, although the side privacy screen would be required for the reasons already outlined, a high screen to the front of the balconies would not be necessary to protect neighbouring residents’ amenities. The balcony detail in the original drawings would be acceptable to ensure a reasonable quality of accommodation for future occupants and satisfactory privacy levels of neighbouring units would also be assured.

The proposed units B on the second to fifth floors would be staggered around the communal stairway and there is concern that this would cause disturbance to future occupants of these units. However, while the entrance of these flats would align with the stairway this would not be the case for the habitable rooms of these dwellings. In any event, residential units near lifts and stairways are not an unusual feature in apartment blocks and materials could be used to prevent future occupants being disturbed by people using the communal areas of the block.

In terms of the layout of units B, these would be small dwellings comprising just two habitable rooms. While the rooms may be staggered, the flow of these units do not appear to be particularly awkward, and the drawings show a layout that would be reasonable and practical for future users.

[name] and F on the second to fifth floors, E and G on the sixth floor and two units on the seventh floor would have a restricted outlook from the bedrooms on the west flank elevation of the building. However, these are two and three bedroomed dwellings with dual aspect. Moreover, these units would have large windows serving other habitable rooms with access to a balcony. Overall, these units would offer a good amount space and outlook for future residents.

Accordingly, I find that the new residential units would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants having regard to outlook and privacy. In this respect, the proposal would accord with Policy LP51 of the Local Plan.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development should only be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In terms of the existing highway conditions relevant to this proposal, fronting a pedestrian [address], vehicular access to the appeal site is via the [name] access road, at the rear of the property. The property is currently two commercial units: the former post office (No 6) and the bank (Nos 8-10). The rear of these properties comprise hardstanding that is divided by a brick wall.

[name] 6 there are off-street parking spaces which are marked for users of commercial units on the [address] or residents of [address]. There appear to be private parking controls in place in this space. Between the parking bays stands a substation and a secure bin store allocated for use by residents of [address]. The hardstanding also serves one of the access/exit doors of the underground parking area for [address].

The hardstanding behind Nos 8 - 10 is broader than that at the rear of the post office. This also has some angled parking bays with parking control signs, but these spaces do not appear to be allocated to any particular property.

The Service Yard C access road is two vehicle width at the junction with the main highway (The Ring) and narrows slightly near the appeal property. In addition to being the main vehicular access for [address] and the appeal property, it provides access to the rear of the [name] building and commercial units comprising Lexicon beyond.

The service yard behind Lexicon forms a hammerhead of sorts and this allows vehicles servicing those units to turn. But there is an entrance barrier across the [name] access road, just past the rear entrance of Nos 8-10, such that that turning area does not appear available to vehicles accessing the appeal property. The evidence suggests that the [name] access road is not adopted. Be this as it may, it is a made carriageway, that appears well maintained with double yellow lines along its length prior to accessing the service yard proper.

As the only point of vehicular access to the appeal property, demolition and construction vehicles and equipment would have to utilise the rear Nos 6 – 10 using the [name] access road. There is concern that the large vehicles required for these works would conflict with vehicles and pedestrians already using this area, including those accessing parking spaces and the [address] bin store. There is also concern that the demolition/construction vehicles would interfere with the smooth function of the [name] access road, which is important for the operation of commercial units in this part of the town centre.

The demolition of buildings that currently form a tight terrace would no doubt present some challenges. Particularly as there are two sizeable residential blocks close to the site and residents of [address] need continual access to parking provision and their bin store. Unfettered use of the [name] access road to service other commercial units is also important.

While the hardstanding at the rear of the appeal property is relatively small, the evidence shows that there is sufficient space to the rear of Nos 8 – 10 for some storage and to accommodate one large vehicle, reversing from the service access road to park for periods of time in the appeal site. ([name] drawing [name] of the draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)). This would require HGVs to cross the existing parking bays on this part of the hardstanding and there is concern that the appellant would not have the right to do this.

Regarding this matter, evidence submitted with the proposal, including the title deed for the appeal site, indicates that the appellant has rights to pass and repass over this hardstanding for access to the rear of the property from the [address]. In respect of this matter, Spencer West LLP concludes that this charge gives the owner of the land the clear right to use the area identified in brown for vehicle or other access, at all times for the purpose of servicing the premises.

While this may be so, it is unclear whether the appellant has rights to suspend the use of parking spaces to allow the turning of large vehicles. That said, this potential turning area is part of the application area. I find no compelling evidence that the appellant could not arrange control over this land to carry out the activities stated in this submission for the temporary period that would be necessary, including to facilitate the turning of large vehicles during the two and half year construction phase of the development.

The rights of the appellant to store materials or site large equipment and welfare units in the space to the rear of No 8 – 10 as indicated in the CEMP are questioned. There is concern that the appellant’s evidence does not take account of the demolition phase, and it is also asserted that the estimated vehicle movements during construction has been underestimated. However, while the Transport Assessment (TA) does not explicitly assess the demolition/construction phase, it does nonetheless recommend a CEMP to ensure that the vehicles movements would be safely managed during this phase.

The CEMP submitted to date is draft only, and it was suggested at the hearing that the approach to demolition and construction can be adapted to site circumstance, with a phased approach applied with space made for storage on cleared parts of the property.

Addressing potential safety impacts of demolition/construction traffic on the [name] access road, there are concerns about the effect of turning and parking vehicles and the potential requirement to close the access road to facilitate works at the site. With regards construction traffic, I saw that the access road is a short, straight carriage way and the junction with the appeal site (Nos 8-10) is relatively wide and open. There is good visibility for all road users at this part of the road such that even large vehicles could safely manoeuvre without risk of incident with other road users or causing undue delay to other vehicles that may be using the [address]. Also, while the pavement in this area is narrow, there is nonetheless safe refuge for pedestrians, separate of the carriageway. Moreover, the [name] access road is marked with double yellow lines. Therefore, there is already safeguards in place to prevent unsafe parking of vehicles on this access road.

While the hardstanding behind Nos 8-10 may only be able to accommodate one large vehicle, I am satisfied that measures could be secured through condition (the CEMP) to control vehicle movements during the construction phase. The CEMP could also control parking for construction workers at the appeal site, timings of deliveries and the removal of demolition waste.

If road closures prove necessary, the evidence points to the appellant needing to agree such closures with other interested parties of the [name] access road. In any event, if road closures are required, this would unlikely be for a prolonged duration such that it would be prohibited or that the short closure would create significant difficulties for those servicing nearby mixed uses.

While appreciating the difficulties of redeveloping this appeal site, no substantive information is advance that this site presents greater challenges to that which may be expected in the development of an urban site surrounded by existing built forms. Indeed, this site at least has the advantage of some off-street hardstanding over which the appellant has some rights. I am content that a carefully phased CEMP could ensure that not only would local residents living conditions be protected, but the existing highways conditions and access for emergency vehicles would also be safeguarded, and deliveries to neighbouring uses would still have safe and reasonable access to the wider area during this phase.

The Council highlights that the proposal could interfere with parking required by other planning permissions. The hardstanding to the rear of No 6, as already outlined is not proposed for construction traffic and storage. Furthermore, observations on site and written evidence suggest that the parking spaces at the rear of Nos 8 – 10 are not connected to planning permission for other development outside the appeal property. Moreover, construction vehicles would affect just a few spaces at the rear of Nos 8 – 10 at a time when those commercial unit were no longer operational. While parking provision for construction workers may be necessary, the CEMP could ensure that workers would not park at the appeal site and direct them to parking provision close by in the town centre. Moreover, there are parking controls in place to disincentivise illegal parking along the [name] access road.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that this phase of the proposed development would not add undue pressure on existing parking arrangements. Nor would it lead to unsafe highway conditions in the vicinity of the appeal property for the reasons stated.

The TA indicates that only four additional servicing vehicles would arrive and depart the site per day as a result of this development once it is operational. Although there is criticism of the TA, it takes account of the new residential uses and increased commercial floor space proposed in this case. The residential TRICS data used is based on examples of other town centre and edge of town development which appear commensurate with this development. While the commercial examples fail to reflect the wide range of uses that could occur if Class E was to be approved, I note that the population size assumed for the TA is considerably larger than that which exists in this Borough, which could result in an over-estimation of vehicle movements. It does not appear overly conservative in this regard.

It is suggested that the time period applied to the TA (0700 – 1900) is too limited. However, the data appended to the appellant’s appeal statement appears to take account of a longer period than this. In any event, a condition limiting delivery times is suggested and this reflects the period of the day that was assessed in the TA. I will address the matter of whether an adequate amount of parking would be provided in due course, but focusing on the effect of the new parking proposed on the current arrangements at the rear of the property, seven spaces would be provided in an under croft at the rear of No 6. There would also be one additional parking space opposite the existing access to the [address] underground car park. Submitted drawings show that existing parking to the rear of No 6, along the brick wall, and the [address] bins store would remain as currently arranged.

With the additional parking spaces there would be more vehicles accessing this area than is presently the case. However, as already outlined delivery vehicles would be restricted to certain times of the day. Furthermore, this is a short straight area of hardstanding, offering good intervisibility between road users and pedestrians in this part of the site, such that this area to the rear of No 6 could accommodate this modest increase in vehicle movements safely.

Turning to the rear of Nos 8 – 10, two disabled parking spaces would be provided, and this would be the main access for future residents accessing the building to park cycles. This area of hardstanding would also be used for refuse lorries and delivery vehicles for the new units which includes sizeable commercial space. The Council highlights that modelling of large vehicles is limited to a 12 m vehicle. While noting that [name] uses could generate large delivery vehicles, the vehicle modelled is large. Furthermore, although the proposal increases the commercial floor space, this would be a relatively modest increase over that existing at the property. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the site could safely accommodate a HGV capable of servicing the potential commercial uses resulting from this development.

Concern is expressed that HGVs entering the site would conflict which large cars parked in the angled parking bays at the rear of Nos 8 - 10. However, the [name] shows that a rigid HGV turning in this space would be close to this parking space, but it would not overlap the markings on this space. HGVs, including refuse vehicles, could be turned into this hardstanding area safely. Moreover, deliveries to commercial units would likely be infrequent and would only need to be at the site for relatively short periods.

Taking the above factors into account, this is a privately controlled parking area, and I find no compelling reasons preventing arrangements being put in place to ensure some off-street parking spaces would be available and that large vehicles could still be accommodated for short periods for servicing the site. Also, while the space to the rear of the appeal property is modest, it is not dissimilar to the amount of space behind Lexicon and [name], and no substantive evidence is advanced that there is unsafe highway conditions in this area currently or that these highways conditions would harmfully change as a result of this development.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring more details as to whether a 16.5 m HGV could be accommodated. However, given the evidence already submitted on this matter, and the factors outlined, this is unnecessary and a condition restricting vehicle lengths to 12 m appears reasonable and necessary in this case.

It was suggested at the hearing that if the appeal was allowed, a condition should be imposed to restrict the type of commercial uses that would be permitted as some E Class uses, such as gyms and nurseries would likely generate more frequent vehicle movements than others uses allowed in this Class. This may be so, but as already indicated this is a town centre location, and it is well served by car parks. Future patrons would have easy access to public parking and good pedestrian routes to commercial units at the appeal site. Given this and the factors outlined above, a condition restricting commercial uses would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

Although there may be some weaknesses in the TA, for the reasons outlined, on balance, I find that the conclusions of the TA are reasonably robust. Moreover, while there would be some increase in vehicles accessing the rear of the property, for the reasons stated this would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety in the area.

As already outlined, there are some existing off street parking spaces at the rear of the property. The submitted drawings show that the existing off-street parking, allocated behind No 6 and unallocated behind Nos 8 – 10, would remain in situ. It was clarified that those existing spaces are not intended for future users of this development.

There is significant off-street parking provision at [address]. A Prior Approval for two 2-bedroom residential units resulting from a change of retail use at No 26 (the rear of the [name] building) has eight parking spaces with two additional spaces retained for that remaining retail unit. There are five other retail units in that neighbouring building and the drawing for the [name] shows another [address] parking spaces to the rear of that building, but it is unclear who has rights over those spaces.

A Certificate of [name] clarifies that the [name] building comprises 67 residential units. No definitive information has been submitted to clarify whether those units have any parking provision. The area to the rear of Lexicon appears focused on commercial vehicle deliveries and does not include significant car parking spaces to the rear of those units.

The town centre comprises a good mix of commercial and retail premises and leisure services. Access to the front of retail and commercial units in this town centre location is predominantly by foot as most of the centre is pedestrianised. There are however a number of multistorey car parks at the edge of this centre. There is also a railway station close to the edge of the town centre and a range of bus services. With these features I agree with the main parties that this is a highly sustainable location.

As already outlined proposed additional parking to the rear of the appeal property would comprise two disabled parking spaces behind Nos 8 – 10. There would be seven spaces in the new under croft at No 6 and an additional uncovered parking bay behind this property. The submitted drawings show that several manoeuvres would be required to access the under croft parking behind No 6, particularly if the car was large. I agree with the Council, even though this space would be capable of accommodating some cars, some of these bays would be extremely awkward to access if other cars are already parked in this area. Such a tight arrangement would discourage the use of this parking area once a few vehicles are parked. It is unlikely to provide the capacity of off-street parking intended for this reason.

It is unclear how proposed parking would be allocated, but even if the under croft could easily accommodate all the vehicles intended, many of the future residents of the new block would still not have access to an off-street parking space in this scheme. Policy LP 25 of the Local Plan requires an appropriate level of parking and Policy LP 62 states that development will be approved which provides vehicle and cycle parking.

Supporting text of Policy LP 62 clarifies that where robust evidence is provided and more sustainable transport modes are both available and accessible, parking provision can be considered more flexibly, but there should always be disabled parking provision and parking for cycles. Addressing the matter of disabled provision, there is concern that the two parking spaces provided would be difficult to access. While future users would have to access these bays at an angle if other vehicles were parked nearby, there would nevertheless be two useable disabled parking spaces available at the rear of the property, which is generally in keeping with local guidance.

In terms of other parking provision for future occupants, as already stated the existing parking spaces to the rear would not appear available for this development. As such the provision appears limited to the handful of new spaces behind No 6. In identifying the appropriate level of parking, the supporting text of Local Plan policies require regard for the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). There would be a considerable shortfall of off-street parking spaces against that suggested in the local parking standards. However, the SPD is advisory, and this is a starting point as opposed to minimum standards.

There would be some spaces for future occupants that may be in most need. Moreover, the very limited parking provision would be clear to other future occupants and there are options, albeit it potentially costly, for parking of vehicles in the multistorey car parks just a few minutes’ walk from the property. It is reasonable to conclude that car ownership for those living in the block would likely be low because of the factors described. However, as already stated future occupants would be well place to access a good range of services and alternative modes of transport if they so wished, such that, in this case, it would be reasonable to apply some flexibility to parking standards, as prescribed in local policy and guidance.

The Council highlights residential developments in the town centre where parking standards have been met. Be this as it may, there are also examples such as the [name] where minimal provision has been made. And while decisions related to that existing development predate the current development plan, there appears no compelling evidence that this existing use has led to unsafe parking in the area or has placed unreasonable pressure on parking provision in the town. Given this factor and the circumstances described above, it is reasonable and justified in this case to apply flexibility and I find that appropriate parking would be provided for this development.

There is concern above the lack of off-street parking leading to unsafe parking in the area and conflict with other road users and pedestrians at the rear of the property. However, as stated there are already measures in place to prevent unsafe parking. Moreover, this development would generate a relatively modest increase in vehicle movements in an area which offers a good level of visibility for all users. I am content that the current level of highway safety would be maintained for this reason.

Most of the lower ground floor would be available for cycle parking for future residents. There is concern about the narrowness of the entrance doors and the width and angle of the internal cycle ramps. These features would be a little awkward but there would be plenty of space for the storage of several bikes and this would be in keeping with local guidance and policy aims. Moreover, this space could be made secure and safe by condition. There is also concern that cyclists exiting the building at the rear would come into conflict with other road users. But as already set out, the visibility on the hardstanding to the rear is reasonable and would be safe for future users.

In light of the above, I find that the proposal would provide safe and suitable access and adequate parking provision, having regard to highway safety and local policy. In this respect, the proposal would accord with [name] 25, LP 50, LP 60 and LP 62 of the Local Plan. Other Matters and Planning Balance

Policy LP 24 of the Local Plan addresses infrastructure matters, development will only be permitted which mitigates its impacts through the provision of necessary infrastructure. The Council has calculated financial contributions towards open space, community facilities and highways improvements. These contributions seek to achieve Local Plan policy aims and to make the development acceptable in terms of these planning matters. Furthermore, the contributions appear proportionate to the development in kind and scale.

Evidence shows a willingness to make these contributions. However, there is no completed legal agreement that would obligate the appellant to do so. Similar to the affordable housing local policy, Policy LP 24 provides some flexibility where viability is a constraint. The Policy requires that this is demonstrated by robust evidence. However, as outlined I find that the viability evidence supporting this proposal lacks robustness. It has not been demonstrated that flexibility, with regards these contributions, should be applied in this case. In light of the above, I find that the proposal would fail to accord with [name] 24, LP 26, LP 44, LP 45 and LP 46 of the Local Plan with regards this matter.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The Local Plan requires 614 new dwellings per annum, and the current HLS stands at 4.49 years, so there is a significant shortfall. In light of this, the provisions in paragraph 11 of the Framework are relevant in this case.

As outlined the proposal would not provide affordable units. That aside, as open market housing this development would make a significant contribution to new housing in the area and to the Government's objective to significantly boost the supply of homes.

Evidence shows that windfall sites have consistently played an important role in the housing supply of the Borough. Moreover, the redevelopment of this site would likely be carried out by Small or [name], and the housing could be built relatively quickly. These are all matters that are supported in national guidance and weigh in favour of this proposal.

Also, the development would utilise a brownfield site within a settlement, in a highly sustainable location. These factors attract substantial weight. There would be significant economic and social benefits for the local area during the construction phase and through the life of the development. The economic benefits include employment opportunities and, future residents would likely support local services. There would also be further economic benefits from improving commercial units on the [address].

However, the Framework states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitat site. The application of policies of the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development in this case. This proposal would not comprise sustainable development accordingly.

This proposal fails to make appropriate provision for affordable housing and infrastructure contributions. Furthermore, without certainty of mitigation being secured, this development would have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of a protected habitat. The proposal would conflict with local policies that deal with these matters and material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan in this case.

Having regard to the development plan, the Framework and other material considerations the appeal should be dismissed.