Appeal 6002545

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the site would provide a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the strategy of the Development Plan.

Policies SP1, CP8 of the Taunton Deane Borough Council Core Strategy 2011- 2028 (CS) and SB1 of the Taunton Deane Site Allocations and Management Plan (2016) (DMP) collectively set out a spatial strategy for the area that seeks to direct new development to the most accessible and sustainable locations that do not include Woodhill, which is outside a defined settlement boundary. Policy SB1 relies on CS Policy DM2, that supports various forms of development outside settlement boundaries, that do not include the development proposed. In addition, CS Policy CP1 and DMP Policy A5 seek to minimise the need to travel by private car and site new residential development within walking distance of, or with access by public transport to, essential community facilities.

Woodhill is a small, loose‐knit hamlet formed through organic and incremental development, that is not included within the list of identified settlements identified in SP1. So, whilst the appeal site is located close to existing residential development, it is treated as being within open countryside for development plan policy purposes. The plot being an established use as part of a residential garden does not change that.

Woodhill does not include the essential day-to-day community facilities and services listed within Policy A5 of the DMP, the nearest of which are located at [site address] which is approximately 1.2km from the appeal site. The site is connected to [site address] by a continuous ribbon of development and the Framework outlines that sustainable development in rural areas can support local services in nearby villages. In this regard, the development plan settlement boundary policies do not reflect the way that the National Planning Policy

However, the services and facilities available in [site address] to support day-to-day living are limited. During my site visit I noted a community pub/café/shop and the local primary school. Access to these facilities would involve walking along a narrow, unlit road, much of which is subject to the national speed limit. This would be even less likely or attractive during inclement weather and hours of darkness. As such, whilst the development may support these facilities, it is likely that these journeys would be undertaken by private car.

Changing travel patterns, increased cycling for health and commuting, and the growth in home‐working are not persuasive factors in determining whether a development is located sustainably. These remain optional, weather‐dependent and unevenly accessible, whilst home‐working trends are sector‐specific and reversible, offering no certainty that daily travel demands will be significantly reduced in the long term. Sustainable location assessments are grounded in the permanence of spatial relationships between housing, services, employment and public transport, rather than in lifestyle choices that may fluctuate over time or across demographic groups.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the proximity of National Cycle Routes 33 and 339, with the nearest access points to these routes located approximately 3 km and 5 km from the appeal site respectively. The appellant also adds that commute cycling to Taunton, around 17 km away, may be feasible. However, no supporting information has been provided regarding the characteristics of these routes, including their safety or suitability for regular commuting. In the absence of such detail, it is not possible to reach a clear view on whether the routes would be suitable or attractive for a wide range of cyclists, including younger and older users.

The closest bus stop is located approximately 400m to the north of the site, with alternative stops located in [name] approximately 1.2km from the appeal site. Policy A5 states that it is important that walking distances to bus stops are short and that walking and waiting conditions attractive to potential bus users. The highway between the site access and the bus stop to the north has neither a pedestrian footway nor street lighting, is subject to the national speed limit and relatively narrow.

Consequently, despite the relatively short distance, the pedestrian route between the site and the bus stop would be unlikely to be perceived as convenient, attractive, or safe, particularly during hours of darkness. This is likely to discourage future occupiers from making use of bus services in practice. Furthermore, whilst the appellant indicates a bus service running every two hours Monday to Saturday and a travel time to Taunton of 43 minutes, I have no substantive evidence about the timetables before me regarding the timings for these journeys.

In any event, this level of service is unlikely to be sufficient to support regular, reliable access to employment, education, healthcare, and shopping. The absence of any bus service on Sundays further reduces the practicality of public transport as a realistic alternative to the private car.

I acknowledge that these findings may, to a degree, reflect characteristics commonly associated with rural locations. The Framework recognises that the potential to maximise sustainable transport solutions will inevitably vary between urban and rural areas, and that development intended to meet local needs in rural areas may, in some circumstances, need to be located where public transport provision is limited. However, this general recognition does not, in itself, negate the need to carefully consider whether the level of accessibility offered would be acceptable in practice for future occupiers of the site.

The ability to undertake linked trips and to combine multiple modes of travel can broaden access to a wider range of destinations. However, this does not overcome the fundamental locational shortcomings where the initial and final stages of a journey are problematic. As outlined previously, the route between the site and the nearest bus stop is unattractive, unsafe and time dependent. Effective multimodal travel relies on the entire journey being accessible and convenient, in this case the deficiencies in the first and last connection undermine the practical sustainability of the location.

Given the limited availability of alternative sustainable transport modes and poor quality and pedestrian options, occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be heavily dependent on a single mode of transport, the private motor vehicle, for the vast majority of their journeys and to meet their day‐to‐day needs.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to the likely reliance on the private motor vehicle, the site’s accessibility to facilities and services and the spatial strategy for the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SP1 and CP1 of the Taunton Deane Borough Council Adopted [name] 2011-2028 and Policies A5 and SB1 of the [name] adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (2016). These policies require, amongst other things, development to be located in accessible locations reducing a reliance on the private motor vehicle.

[name] CP8 and DM1(d) are concerned, amongst other things, with the effect of development on the character and appearance of an area. Notwithstanding this, even if the development were deemed acceptable in terms of effects on the character and appearance of the area, and other technical matters, these considerations would be neutral in the planning balance.

The appellant directed me to Appeal Ref: APP/E3335/W/23/3330979. This decision related to an application in 2023 for the removal of an occupation condition imposed in 2007. In this case the building was granted planning permission for conversion into three dwellings for persons solely or mainly employed in The Willows and [name]. In the 2023 case, the three dwellings were already in existence and the Inspector found the short walk from the facilities on offer in [site address] , acceptable. As such, I find the circumstances in that case to be markedly different to those before me.

The Council and the appellant have put forward differing housing land supply figures. [name] were to accept the appellant’s lower 3.1 year figure, this is well below Government expectations. As a result, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework requires that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of new accommodation that would assist in meeting need in the area, provide support for local facilities, the creation of jobs during the construction phase and would support services in nearby settlements.

However, for the reasons given above and from the information before me, I have concluded that there would be significant harm arising, in terms of the reliance on the private motor vehicle and accessibility to facilities and services, given the spatial strategy for the area. The support for the principle of housing development within the Framework is balanced by the importance it places on the provision of well-designed development that provides a high level of amenity for existing and future users. In this instance, the harm in these respects would be both significant and enduring. When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The site is located within the catchment area of the [name] and Moors Special Protection Area and listed Ramsar site. As a European Designated Site and Ramsar site, this is protected pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended). In the event that I had found no harm in respect of the main issues, the competent authority (in this case myself) would need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment in respect of the potential effects of the proposal on the designated site. However, as I have found harm on other substantive grounds, this matter need not be considered any further in this case.

I conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.