Appeal 6002883

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:  the effect of the proposal on the character of the area;  whether adequate information is provided in support of the proposal with regard to the biodiversity net gain objective; and  whether sufficient contributions towards infrastructure would be provided.

The appeal site comprises a detached two storey dwelling set back from the road in a large sloping plot with generous gardens, set behind boundary trees. This part of [address] is characterised by large dwellings or apartment buildings that have been designed to appear as individual dwellings, all of varying designs, that sit within large and spacious plots. The buildings are generally two or three storeys in height and are set back from the road behind a well treed frontage.

The heavily vegetated front boundaries provide screening, and I noted that only filtered views of the built form beyond was visible from [address] during my site visit. Directly opposite is a cul-de-sac, which provides detached one and a half and two storey dwellings which whilst appear to be on smaller plots, still appear generously sized and spacious. The arrangement of built form, the character of the buildings appearing as individual dwellings, the spacious plots and the dense tree coverage along the boundaries contribute positively to a semi-rural and sylvan character.

The Digswell Character Appraisal January 2004 (DCA) is of some age but does provide relevant character analysis. [address] is located in character sub-area [name] identifies that houses along this stretch of the road are only fleetingly visible behind well screened green boundaries and recognises the deep set backs, generous spaces between houses and varied design. Given my findings on the existing character and appearance of the area above, I concur with the analysis set out in the DCA. I find that [site address] currently contributes positively to these defining characteristics of the area.

The proposal would result in a building which would be set off both side boundaries, sited centrally within the plot and not overly wide in comparison to some other buildings nearby. The scheme would also make effective use of the sloping nature of the site and as such the overall height of the building would appear consistent with neighbouring development.

However, the footprint of the proposed building would be significantly deeper than is the case for other buildings adjacent and near to the site. The overall size of the plan form in combination with the scale of the proposal would result in a development of significant massing that would appear extensive and bulky. Even with the proposed stepping down of the building from the front to the back of the site, the overall extent of the built form and depth of the footprint would be significantly at odds with surrounding developments.

In my view, as a result of the depth and overall massing of the proposal, it would not appear as a large single dwelling akin to those present in the surrounding area but would appear more clearly as a substantial apartment building. I therefore find that the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of buildings in the surrounding area which present as individual dwellings in their design approach.

The proposal would result in the delivery of 15 apartments, which would be a significant intensification of the residential use of the site. I find that this more intensive residential use would be discernible to those occupying neighbouring and nearby properties. Alongside the overall depth and massing of the building, features in the external landscaping such as the hard surface to the side of the building, would be a key sign. The activity, in terms of the comings and goings related to the site and the use of the external space would also be a clear indication of the significant residential intensification. I find that these factors would harmfully erode the character of the area.

[name] accept that the under croft parking arrangement would enable less hard surfacing across the site and the screening of some of the cars, it does highlight the intensity of the proposed use, being a more urban approach to parking, which is not reflective of the semi-rural area in which the site is located.

The plot at No 57 is deeper than others along this part of [address] and a sizable rear garden space, larger than some of the rear garden spaces nearby, would be provided as part of the scheme. However, I do not find that the plot is so significantly larger that it appears anomalous to its surroundings currently. Consequently, this consideration does not alter my view about the character of development present and how the proposal would respond to it.

The trees along the road frontage would largely be retained and would therefore continue to make a positive contribution. As a result of the trees, views of the development from [address] would be filtered fairly significantly albeit less so when the trees are not in leaf. However, even if the site is subject to significant screening, it does not negate the need to consider how the development responds to the character of the area and whether it meets policy requirements.

I am referred to the developments at 59, 61 and 63 and [address] which are adjacent to the site. Whilst these developments do appear as substantial buildings, the design approach utilised means that they appear as large individual dwellings. The overall depth and massing of them is less than in the case of the proposal before me now. Each of those developments provides nine apartments, and therefore they provide a less intensive residential use. I am referred to a scheme at [address], however, that development is much smaller in scale and houses only four apartments.

I am directed to an approved scheme at [address] for a flatted development, directly adjacent to the site. Nevertheless, the footprint of that approved scheme would appear more commensurate to that of the developments at Nos 59, 61 and 63 and 65 and it would also provide nine apartments. I am also referred to a permission granted by the Council at [address] for an apartment building. It appears that this approved scheme would be limited to nine apartments and would be smaller in scale than the proposal before me now. I therefore find that none of the existing developments or approved schemes referred to are directly comparable to the appeal proposal.

[name] note the Council’s concerns about the cumulative impact of the proposal alongside the existing and approved flatted developments located in this part of [address], I do not find this factor harmful in isolation. The existing flatted developments that have been designed to appear as large individual dwellings add to the character of the area and have evolved it in terms of the type of residential development that is present. However, I do find it necessary to consider the proposal in terms of how it responds to the existing character of the area in terms of both the building and its use.

[name] am referred to the consideration of tandem development set out in the DCA, the proposal before me would not form a tandem development and as such it is not directly relevant to my consideration of this case.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal would result in a significant intensification of the residential use of the site that would be harmfully at odds with the character of the area. It would be contrary to Policy SP 9 of the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan 2016 – 2036 (LP). This policy seeks, amongst other things, that proposals deliver high quality design that fosters a positive sense of place by relating well to their surroundings and local distinctiveness.

The proposal would also be at odds with the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan Supplementary Design Guidance February 2005 which requires all new development to respect and relate to the character and context of the area in which they are situated. I also find that the proposal would not align with the overarching objective of the DCA, that the character of Digswell is maintained and enhanced.

LP Policy SADM11 is also referred to by the Council, however, I find that this policy relates more to how the living conditions of future and neighbouring occupiers are considered, which is not directly relevant to this matter.

LP Policy SADM 16 states that proposals will be expected to maintain, protect and wherever possible enhance biodiversity and does not set out a requirement for a minimum amount of biodiversity net gain that must be achieved. Nevertheless, Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out a statutory framework for the biodiversity net gain objective which requires a 10% increase in biodiversity value. Where the biodiversity net gain objective applies, the biodiversity net gain condition is relevant. This condition requires that once permission has been granted, that a Biodiversity Gain Plan must be submitted and approved by the planning authority before commencement of the development.

There is no dispute between the parties that the biodiversity net gain objective would apply to the proposal. The Council identify that a legal agreement is required to secure off-site biodiversity units, given it has been demonstrated that the required 10% biodiversity net gain could not be accommodated on site. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to disagree with this approach.

The Planning Practice Guidance states that where off-site biodiversity net gains are required, applicants are encouraged to provide the local planning authority with draft heads of terms clearly setting out the obligations that they are likely to be bound by in a s106 agreement, should permission be granted. Therefore, there is no requirement for this matter to be fully resolved prior to the granting of planning permission, providing that clear information on what obligations would be necessary is provided.

Whilst the s106 agreement I have been provided with is not signed or dated and therefore not complete, I find that it still clearly identifies the obligations that the appellant would be likely bound by should that agreement be completed and planning permission be granted. The Council has also confirmed that it agrees to the terms of the draft s106 agreement.

I therefore find that adequate information is provided in support of the biodiversity net gain objective. The proposal would therefore comply with LP Policy SADM 16 which seeks, amongst other things, that biodiversity is enhanced wherever possible. I also find sufficient information is provided with regard to the requirements of Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

LP Policy SP 13 sets out that developers will be required to contribute to the reasonable costs of enhancing existing infrastructure or providing new physical, social and green infrastructure that is required as a result of a proposal. In this respect, the Council identify that contributions towards open space, play space and on-site waste and recycling infrastructure would be required.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states at paragraph 58 that planning obligations must only be sought where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

I have been provided with the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document February 2012 (SPD). However, the SPD does not refer to LP Policy SP 13. [name] note that the County Council Growth and [name] provided a response to the application setting out some figures relating to other matters, it references a different planning obligations document approved in 2021. I have not been provided with a copy of that other document. Therefore, the calculations behind and the requirement for the figures identified have not been clearly set out.

Nevertheless, the appellant does not dispute the requirement for the contributions and has provided a draft s106 agreement which, if completed, would secure the amounts identified by the Council. Even if I were to find that it has been demonstrated that the planning obligations meet the tests set out in the Framework, I do not have a completed version of the s106 agreement before me.

As such, the identified contributions would not be secured towards open space, play space and on-site waste and recycling infrastructure and consequently the proposal would conflict with LP Policy SP 13. Nevertheless, given my concerns on the lack of clarity in how the figures have been arrived at and whether they meet the tests set out in the Framework, this matter does not weigh against the proposal.

The scheme before me has evolved since the submission of previous proposals for the site, one of which was dismissed at appeal. The appellant has sought to resolve the issues raised by the Council and the previous Inspector. I also understand that the Planning Officer recommended approval for the scheme, but the Planning Committee came to a different conclusion. However, I must consider the appeal before me on its individual merits.

I understand that there has been a delay in completing the s106 agreement and that the terms have been agreed between the main parties for some time. Nevertheless, given my findings above, I do not find it necessary to delay making my decision based on the lack of a completed s106 agreement.

The parties agree that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a sufficient housing land supply. A figure of 2.5 years is referred to, and the appellant also identifies that the most recent [name] result is 52%. This is a significant shortfall in both housing land supply and the delivery of new homes.

Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged which states 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 taken as a whole, having regard to key policies, including securing well-designed places.

The Framework states at paragraph 135 that decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities).

The requirement under Policy SP 9 of the LP for development to be of high quality design that fosters a positive sense of place by relating well to their surroundings and local distinctiveness is aligned with this aim of the Framework. The conflict with this policy should therefore be given significant weight in this case. As the development would be contrary to this policy, I find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The appeal scheme would provide a net increase of 14 dwellings on an existing plot which would add to the housing stock in an existing settlement where future occupants would have access to some services, facilities and public transport options. The development could be built out relatively quickly. The appellant asserts that the proposal would make efficient use of the site. [name] note that the Framework promotes the avoidance of homes being built at low densities where there is an existing shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it also identifies the need to consider the effects on local character and the need to maintain a strong sense of place. I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the proposed scheme is the only design option for increasing the density of residential units in this location.

There would be economic benefits during the construction phase and after with future occupants supporting local services and facilities. There would be environmental benefits through the landscaping of the site and in terms of the biodiversity net gain that could be secured. Given the scale of the proposal and taking into account the current housing land supply shortfall, I attribute significant weight to the social, economic and environmental benefits.

Turning to the disadvantages, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character of the area. Given the long lasting effects that would result to the character of the area, I attribute substantial weight to this harm.

I am referred to paragraph 125 c) of the Framework. The appellant states the site is brownfield, and the Council do not dispute this assertion. However, even if the site did represent brownfield land, the substantial weight the Framework requires me to give to the use of brownfield land depends upon it being suitable. I have set out above that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character of the area. Therefore, insofar as this particular scheme is concerned, the suitability of the land for the proposed development is not apparent.

I have not found harm in relation to the sufficiency of the information provided relating to the biodiversity net gain objective. I have also found that the matter of contributions towards infrastructure does not weigh against the proposal for the reasons I have outlined above. These matters therefore form neutral considerations.

Consequently, I find that adverse impacts in this case significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to securing well-designed places. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.