Appeal 6002477

The appeal is allowed and the reserved matters are approved, namely appearance, landscaping, layout and scale details submitted in pursuance of condition No 1 attached to planning permission [name]/23/01054/OUT, in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/25/02171/RM, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the details submitted pursuant to condition Nos 4, 7, 9 and 10 attached to planning permission [name]/23/01054/OUT, in accordance with application [name]/25/02171/RM, which are approved.

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to condition No 3 and the details submitted in relation to electric vehicle charging which are not approved.

The process to gain approval for reserved matters normally takes place separately to the discharging of planning conditions. Nevertheless, the appellant submitted details for both the reserved matters required by condition No 1 and condition Nos 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the outline permission on the application for the approval of reserved matters following outline approval. The Council considered both as part of its assessment of the application, consequently, so will I.

The outline permission was granted under planning application [name]/23/01054/OUT for the erection of two dwellings and associated works and included details of access for consideration. The access element of the development was therefore approved as part of the outline scheme and was not referred to as being required under condition No 1 of the outline planning permission. Nevertheless, the appellant has selected access as a reserved matter for which approval is being sought under the appeal proposal before me now.

However, as this reserved matter has already been approved under the outline permission, I will deal with the submitted access details in relation to condition 10 which required further details regarding the access. This is one of the conditions which the appellant has identified they wish to discharge as part of the scheme.

With regard to layout and landscaping matters, the appellant submitted an [name] (AR) with the appeal. I note the Council’s concerns about it not being submitted with the application. However, no changes to the scheme are proposed as a result of the findings of the AR. Also, with regard to the Council’s second reason for refusal regarding the access arrangement, the appellant submitted a revised proposed site plan (KDEB P05 [name]) to alter the access arrangement slightly to respond to comments from the Highway Authority.

The Council has provided comments on both the AR and the revised proposed site plan, and members of the public have had the opportunity to comment on them through the appeal process also. Therefore, I am satisfied that due to the minor nature of the amendment, identifying how the access would be built out, there would be no procedural injustice caused if I were to consider them.

Whilst an update was provided in relation to the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and it subsequently being made, I have not been referred to any policies within the NP that are relevant to the proposal.

Planning permission for this development has been granted by the outline planning permission. The appeal relates to an approval of the reserved matters and details required by conditions only. The main issues in this case are therefore: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, in terms of the scale, appearance and layout; • the effect on existing neighbouring trees with regard to layout; • whether sufficient opportunities for landscaping would be provided; • whether the proposal would provide a safe and suitable site access; and • whether sufficient information is provided in relation to electric vehicle charging, ecology, ground conditions and waste receptacles.

The appeal site comprises an area of land to the rear of dwellings that front onto [address] within the settlement of [site address] . The site is surrounded by close boarded fencing. Along the northern and part of the eastern boundaries, are a row of trees situated on an open green space, located on adjacent land, beyond the site. The surrounding area is characterised by two storey dwellings of varying designs and heights, with a mixture of terraced, semi-detached and detached properties present. Whilst two and a half storey dwellings are not a prevailing feature, there are a limited number present further down the road towards the junction with [address].

I note the concerns raised about the two and a half storey scale of development proposed. The height of the dwellings would be higher than 27 and [address] which would sit in front of them, but the proposed street scene drawing identifies that they would not be significantly taller. The variation in the heights of dwellings along [address], means that the height of the proposal would not appear overly dominant and would reflect the existing variation in this regard. This consideration in combination with the fact that the proposed dwellings would sit behind frontage development means that the development would not appear overly prominent in the street scene.

The footprint of the dwellings would be larger than some along [address], but they would not be significantly greater. They would follow a simple plan form that is reflective of dwellings in the surrounding area. The gable feature to the front, the porch and the half-hipped roof all provide details which would break up the massing of the development. As a result, I do not find that the proposed development would appear overly bulky in appearance.

There would be open areas to the front and rear of both dwellings providing private garden spaces, the driveway and the parking and turning areas. Limited space would be retained between the two proposed dwellings, but more undeveloped space would be provided between the side elevations and the boundaries of the site. The space around the dwellings that would be provided as part of the overall layout would appear fairly well balanced compared with the proposed footprint of built form. I therefore do not find that the proposal would appear cramped or result in a scheme that would appear as being overly developed.

I note that both parties refer to the illustrative drawings provided with a previous scheme on the site which was subject to appeal. Whilst the appeal was dismissed in that case the Inspector considered that the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. [name] note that the illustrative details showed two dwellings with smaller footprints, they also included a garage and a car port which do not form part of the proposal before me now. As such, the overall footprint of built form would not be significantly different to that viewed by the previous Inspector. In any case, those details were illustrative and not determinative in that case. Scale, appearance and layout were not matters before that previous Inspector. I therefore must consider the scheme before me on its individual merits.

I therefore find that the proposed scheme would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, having regard to matters of scale, appearance and layout. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 July 2021 (LP). This policy seeks, amongst other things, that developments respond positively to their context and relate well to existing local surroundings. For the same reasons I do not find that the proposal would be contrary to the [name] 2023 which also seeks that developments are sensitive to local character.

The trees located in the adjacent green space are located in close proximity to the boundary of the site. However, the submitted AR identifies that the built footprint of the proposed dwellings would be located outside of the root protection areas of these trees.

The AR suggests that there was previously a significant hedgerow along the rear boundary of the site that screened the trees beyond the boundary. Whilst this hedgerow has now been removed, it appears to have impacted on the growth of the trees. I observed them growing out towards the open green space rather than significantly overhanging the site during my site visit. Shadow modelling is also provided in the AR which identifies that there would not be any significant shading issues across the site during the summer months when the trees are in full leaf. There is no compelling evidence before me which suggests the results of the AR are not accurate.

There would not be any significant overshadowing or nuisance issues related to outlooks from the side of the dwelling that would face the trees on account of there being no habitable room windows positioned in that side elevation. Whilst debris may fall from the trees at certain times of the year, this would be expected in a situation where plots are located close to trees and future occupiers would be aware of this.

Whilst the trees would be a noticeable feature for future occupants, positioned close to the boundary of the site and being of some height, there is no compelling evidence before me that suggests that they would be likely to result in a significant level of nuisance to future occupants. I am therefore of the view that it is unlikely that there would be undue pressure in the future to carry out works to them which would cause significant harm or the loss of the trees.

I therefore find that the proposal would not be likely to result in unacceptable effects on adjacent trees and the layout of the proposed development in relation to the existing trees would be acceptable. The proposal therefore complies with LP Policy EE4 which seeks, amongst other things, that existing trees are incorporated to enhance developments and to ensure longevity.

The proposed layout sets out space along the full length of the northern boundary to provide soft landscaping between the boundary fence and the dwelling. Whilst the space between the dwelling on plot [address] would be more limited towards the rear corner, there would still be some space to allow access around the dwelling, and any planting along this boundary would be maintainable by the future occupants. Small hedged or planted areas are also shown to the front of the dwellings which would soften the development. I also find there is sufficient space in the rear garden areas to provide further planting areas if future occupants wanted to expand the amount of soft landscaping.

I therefore find that the proposed landscaping scheme is sufficient in the context of this site. The proposal would therefore comply with LP Policy HQ1 which requires, amongst other things, that developments should make provision for appropriate landscaping.

[name] 10 on the outline planning permission requires that development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed access and the highway have been submitted and approved and that such detail shall include alterations within the highway to improve visibility.

As stated earlier the appellant has provided a revised proposed site plan with the appeal which slightly amends the proposed access build-out between 25 and [address]. The arrangement would provide a low kerb to define the edge of the carriageway and a curved entrance into the site. This amendment replaces a more abrupt arrangement at the junction between the access and the carriageway.

The Council has confirmed that it consulted the Highway Authority on this revision and considers that the amendment has resolved its previous concerns. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree.

I therefore find that the submitted details on the amended proposed site plan would provide a safe and suitable access into the site. As such, the proposal complies with LP Policy T2 which seeks, amongst other things, that developments provide safe and convenient access.

The Council has referred to a Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2023 in its second reason for refusal, however, given it largely relates to parking standards I do not find that it is directly relevant to this main issue.

Given this application seeks the discharge of planning conditions in combination with reserved matters, I will now turn to consider the remaining conditions. Condition 3 – electric vehicles

[name] 3 requires the submission of a scheme for the charging of electric and ultra-low emission vehicles including the details of active charging posts or passive provision such as cabling and electricity supply for each dwelling and the timescales/triggers for the implementation of the scheme.

The position of the electric vehicle charging points are identified on the submitted proposed site plan, however there is no detailed information provided on the active charging posts or passive provision that would be used nor are the timescales or triggers for implementation provided.

Consequently, I find the information submitted in respect of condition No 3 would not demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of LP Policy T5, which seeks that suitable provision of electric vehicle charging is secured. I therefore find that condition No 3 cannot be discharged. Condition 4 - ecology

[name] 4 requires that any reserved matters application shall be accompanied by an [name] for the creation of new wildlife features. It states that the detailed design of enhancements, the extent and location of the proposed works and implementation, after care and long term maintenance details shall be provided.

I note the concerns raised by interested parties about the effect of the works carried out so far on wildlife. However, an Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP) was submitted with the application. The Council state that the EEP is sufficient in respect of condition No 4 providing that a condition is attached to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with it. Based on the evidence before me I can find no reason to disagree with the Council on this matter. As a result, I find that the submitted details would comply with LP Policy EE2, which seeks, amongst other things, that developments deliver ecological enhancements. I therefore find that the EEP is sufficient to discharge condition No 4. Condition 7 – ground conditions

[name] 7 requires the submission of a Phase 1 [name] report documenting the ground conditions of the site with regard to potential contamination and where necessary a Phase 2 Site Investigation and a Phase 3 [name].

A Preliminary Risk Assessment Desk Study (PRA) was submitted with the application which identifies that the site is at low risk of potential contamination and that any risks can be managed through standard construction practices, clean garden topsoil provision, and the implementation of an unexpected contamination protocol during works. The Council has confirmed that it is satisfied with the submitted PRA providing that the approach set out is secured by condition.

Based on the evidence before me including the PRA, I find that the proposal would accord with LP Policy CC8 which seeks, amongst other things, that pollution, including the potential for contamination is adequately considered as part of new development. I therefore find that condition No 7 is discharged. Condition 9 – waste receptacles

[name] 9 requires a scheme for the provision of waste receptacles which shall be provided before first occupation. The Council suggests that it requires proof that the bins have been ordered to discharge this condition.

However, I find that the proposed site plan clearly identifies adequate areas for the provision of bins along with a bin collection area closer to the road. I do not find it necessary to have proof that the bins have been purchased at this stage of the development, providing that adequate provision has been proposed, which I have identified above as being the case. I am not directed to any policy that requires proof of the purchase of bins, nor does the condition require it.

Consequently, I find that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate compliance with Policy WSP 5 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan: [name] and [name] 2014 which requires that sufficient waste storage and recovery facilities are provided. For the same reasons, the proposal would also comply with an overarching aim set out in the [name] in New Developments Supplementary Planning Document 2006, that waste management is integrated into new developments. I therefore find that the submitted information is sufficient to discharge the first part of condition No 9 which requires a scheme to be submitted and agreed in writing. The second part of the condition requires that the receptacles are provided before occupation takes place. At this stage, this element of the condition cannot be discharged, but will remain as a requirement prior to occupation.

Interested parties have raised objections due to the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. I note that sun path information has been provided that suggests that there would not be a significant effect on light reaching the neighbouring garden spaces or properties. I have no substantive evidence before me to the contrary. There would be sufficient space retained between the side elevation of the proposed dwelling 25B and the rear elevations of 27 and [address] to ensure that there would not be an unacceptable effect on the outlooks from the rear of these properties.

In respect of the proposed dwelling 25B, two of the three windows proposed in the rear elevation at first floor level and one of the two rooflights would serve bathrooms. Given the use of these rooms, it is unlikely that they would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking. The two bedrooms with windows in the rear elevation of 25B would be situated furthest away from neighbouring properties. The bedroom windows at first floor level and the rooflights proposed in the front elevations of the proposed dwellings would be set away from the side boundary and due to the orientation, views would be towards the rear of the neighbouring garden space which is significant in depth. Overall, I do not find that the proposal would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking and I do not consider it necessary to impose a condition requiring the details of the rooflights in this case.

Some of the proposed parking spaces would be adjacent to or in close proximity of the boundary with [address]. Soft landscaping would be provided alongside some of the spaces which would provide separation. Considering the amount of likely vehicular movements resulting from the three properties and how the parking and turning is arranged within the site, I do not find that there would be an unacceptable level of vehicular disturbance to neighbouring occupiers as a result.

The Council has identified that due to the orientation of the proposed dwellings, the separation between the proposed dwellings with the boundaries of the site and development beyond, along with the positioning of windows, there would be no unacceptable effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. Based on my assessment above, I concur with the Council’s views.

Concerns are also raised about the effect the proposal would have on on-street parking which I am told is already an issue locally, particularly during school drop off and pick up times. However, three off-street spaces are shown on the proposed layout for each new dwelling along with two spaces for No 25 and a visitor space. A turning space within the site would also be provided. The Council has not raised any concerns about the level of parking proposed and based on the evidence before me I can find no compelling reason to disagree.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that the only conditions which can be imposed when reserved matters are approved are conditions which relate directly to those reserved matters. It is relevant that there are existing conditions on the outline permission which would remain applicable to the development, including the timescale for implementation. It is not therefore necessary for me to impose a separate timescale for implementation condition. To provide certainty, I have imposed a condition setting out the approved plans.

A pre-commencement condition requiring tree protection measures is required in order to ensure the adjacent trees are protected during the construction works. A pre-commencement condition is also necessary to require details of the finished ground and slab levels of the proposed dwellings in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupants.

Conditions are imposed in relation to materials and landscaping details in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. I have imposed a condition requiring that the turning area is constructed prior to occupation to ensure vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

I have imposed two conditions requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the EEP and PRA in the interests of clarity and to ensure that ecological enhancements are provided and that protocols are followed in relation to unexpected contamination, if found.

I have not imposed the suggested condition relating to bin storage areas as I have found that sufficient information in this respect has been provided under the application to discharge condition 9 of the outline permission. Condition 9 also requires that the bins are provided prior to the occupation of the dwellings and therefore I am satisfied that this matter is adequately dealt with. Similarly, I have not imposed the suggested condition regarding the construction of the proposed vehicular access prior to occupation, given that condition 11 attached to the outline permission would secure this.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed in relation to the approval of reserved matters required by condition No 1 of outline planning permission CB/23/01054/OUT, subject to the attached conditions.

The appeal is allowed in respect of the discharge of condition Nos 4, 7, 9 and 10 and the details submitted in respect of these matters are approved. However, the appeal is dismissed with regard to the discharge of condition No 3 and the submitted information in respect of that matter alone is not approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing [name] P01, KDEB P06, KDEB P05 [name], KDEB P07 [name] and KDEB P08 [name].

No development shall take place until a Tree Protection Plan and [name] based on the root protection areas as shown in Appendix 1 ‘Tree Survey Schedule’ and Appendix 2 ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment Plan’ which forms part of the [name] dated 31 October 2025 prepared by Bucks Plant Care Ltd is submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place until details of the existing and final ground and slab levels of the dwellings hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground level shall take place until a landscaping scheme to include all hard and soft landscaping and a scheme for landscape maintenance for a period of five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and/or first use of any of the permitted dwellings (a full planting season means the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape maintenance scheme and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, the turning space for vehicles identified on drawing no KDEB P05 [name] shall be completed and retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Ecological Enhancement Plan dated 10 September 2025 prepared by ArbTech.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Preliminary Risk Assessment: [name] dated 21 August 2025 prepared by ArbTech.