Appeal 6002480

The appeal is dismissed.

A legal agreement has been submitted which seeks to tie the proposed dwelling with the adjoining farm an provide mitigation towards the [name] and Moors Ramsar. This is discussed below.

The main issues in this case are • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for housing having regard to the development plan for the area and access to services and facilities; and • whether the proposal provides appropriate provision for minimising waste and reducing energy use with regard to refuse and recycling facilities.

Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2015 (LP) states that development in rural settlements (not [name] or [name]) will be strictly controlled and limited to that which provides employment opportunities, and/or creates or enhances community facilities and services; and/or meets identified housing needs.

Furthermore, LP Policy SS2 states that proposals for housing development should only be permitted in rural settlements that have access to two or more key services, as listed in paragraph 5.39 of the LP.

From what I observed, even if the proposal is considered as part of a rural settlement, there are no nearby services and facilities, or key services, that are safely and realistically accessible from the appeal site. It is noteworthy that the appellant also states that he will be reliant on a private vehicle to access facilities from the appeal site. That this is also currently the case does not alter this and as such, the proposal does not meet the criteria of this policy.

I conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for housing having regard to the development plan for the area. It therefore conflicts with LP Policy SS2 which together seek to direct development towards larger settlements and to strictly control development in the open countryside.

The refusal reason also refers to LP Policy EP7. This policy specifically refers to live/work units. The appellant has confirmed that the proposal is not for a live/work unit. As such, this policy is not determinative on this main matter.

The proposed development would be sited some distance from the main road. There is no substantive evidence before me that the waste collection authority would be able to access the site to collect waste. Therefore, whilst not identified on any drawing, as set out by the appellant, any resident will have to take the waste and recycling approximately 100 metres to the junction with the main road.

This is a considerable distance and, and as a matter of fact and degree, this arrangement would not enable future residents to conveniently manoeuvre waste bins to the proposed collection point.

This would be contrary to advice set out in the Somerset Waste Partnership guidance1, which sets out that the “Distance between point of collection and closest access point for collection vehicle is no more than 15m for boxes, and 10m for 4-wheeled bins.”, and “Storage locations must be no further than 30m distance from the property.”

The introduction to this guidance sets out that it should be considered alongside the planning policies of the district councils and the [name], which it states forms part of the wider development plan for Somerset. As such, whilst not an adopted supplementary planning document, given that it is specifically referred to in adopted policy, it does have some weight and relevance to the proposal. The goal of the guidance is to ensure that ‘new developments are built with recycling in mind is a key aspect of minimising waste and moving towards net zero emissions’

The surroundings of the appeal site do include instances of properties set back considerably from the road. However, there is no substantive evidence before me of the policy context of these developments, and as such they are not directly comparable to the proposal before me. The example provided by the appellant is of a shorter distance2 between the proposed dwelling from the roadside. I do not consider a condition securing an appropriate location for bin storage would be appropriate a there is no conclusive evidence before me that an appropriate location is possible.

Given the distance involved, far in excess of the guidance limit, I conclude that the proposal would not make appropriate provision for minimising waste and reducing energy use with regard to refuse and recycling facilities. The proposal would 1 Somerset Waste Partnership ‘Planning homes with recycling in mind.’ Last updated: June 3, 2024 2 Appeal reference APP/H1705/W/20/3259602 therefore conflict with Policy WCS2 of the [name] development plan document up to 2028 (2013) (WCS), which sets out that the Council will work with the Somerset Waste Partnership to encourage developers to provide adequate access for waste collection in new developments. This accords with the goal of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to achieve well-designed places that function well, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development.

The appeal site is within the catchment flowing into the [name] and Moors Ramsar (the Ramsar). The Ramsar comprises large areas of lowland wet grassland and wetland habitats that support internationally important wildfowl, flora, and invertebrates. Nutrient pollution is a particular problem for freshwater and wetlands habitats as it can cause eutrophication that disrupts and destroys them thereby detrimentally impacting upon the species they support.

New residential development needs to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it would not give rise to additional phosphates within the hydrological catchment of the Ramsar.

As set out above, the appellant has provided a legal agreement securing mitigation towards the Ramsar, by way of the purchase of phosphate credits from providers with overarching legal agreements with Somerset Council. However, the Council raise issue with detail of the document. Given that, as set out below, I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I am not pursuing this matter further because it could not lead me to a different decision.

The proposal would result in an additional unit of accommodation which would contribute to the Government’s broader objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The development would make efficient use of the site, as supported by the Framework. The proposal would also result in a short-term economic benefits arising from the construction process. Economic and social benefits are also likely to arise from the occupation of the new dwelling. However, given the quantum of development in this case, each of these benefits would be modest.

LP Policy SS2 is broadly consistent with the Framework where it states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth and seeks to maximise sustainable transport solutions. WCS Policy WCS2 is broadly consistent with the Framework where it seeks to achieve well-designed places that function well, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. As such, the conflict with these policies should be given substantial weight in this appeal.

Given the conflict identified above, the development would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council confirms that they are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and put the current figure at 2.84 years supply. Notwithstanding issues relating to a habitats site as set out above, the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is therefore engaged.

The proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, particularly on brownfield land, and acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and be built out quickly. Whilst the scale of the proposal is limited, given the considerable scale of the shortfall identified, this attracts moderate weight.

The economic and social benefits from the build and occupation of the dwelling as well as support for local services, facilities and the community, including those in other villages would be limited given the size of the development, and their weight in favour of the scheme is modest.

The Framework supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. Nevertheless, whilst the development is described as such, there is no mechanism before to secure the proposal as self build. As such, this carries little weight in favour of the proposal.

Given the scale of development, any benefits in relation to the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions brought about by the lack of commute compared to the existing position, or proximity to health facilities and the family farm arising from the development would be minor and would be linked only to the current circumstances of the appellant. Whilst a legal agreement tying the dwelling to the adjacent farm is submitted, this is not a personal permission and there is no mechanism before me securing it as such. Consequently, any such benefit arising from these personal circumstances can only be given minor weight.

Any future environmental benefits of tying the farm and dwelling together, in terms of pollution from commuting, would be, again, given the scale of development, limited and mitigated to some extent by the reliance on private car to access facilities and services. There is no mechanism before me requiring home delivery. This also therefore carries minor weight.

The proposal would conflict with the Framework where it seeks to actively manage patterns of growth, seeks to maximise sustainable transport solutions and achieve well-designed places that function well. Given the importance the Framework gives to actively managing patterns of growth in support of sustainable transport and sustainable development generally, I give significant weight to this matter.

Consequently, the adverse impacts set out above 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.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission is refused.