Appeal 6003028

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • green space; • the character and appearance of the area, including trees; • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] and 1 [site address] , with regard to outlook, daylight/sunlight and privacy; • the living conditions of future occupiers, with regard to private amenity space; • highway safety, with regard to car parking and accessible routes for all; and • [name] (BNG).

The appeal site falls within the [address] [name] green space designation. Under Policy G6 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] selective Review 2019) (CS) it is protected from development unless one of a list of criteria is met. The appeal site does not include facilities or play equipment, and the appellant suggests that the site is minimally used by occasional dog walkers. However, it forms part of the Public Right of Way (PRoW) network and there are a large number of objections from local residents that indicate that the appeal site is well used as a green route that provides connectivity across the locality. I have no reason to doubt that the appeal site is actively used and valued by the community. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires such areas of open space which offer opportunities for recreation to be protected.

It has not been shown that the designation does not reflect the use of the land or that the green space should not be protected from development. Neither is site ownership a factor for the purposes of Policy G6. While the appellant has expressed frustrations about the designation process, this matter falls beyond the scope of the appeal. The proposal would reduce recreational opportunities in the area and there is no substantive evidence that any of the criteria in Policy G6 are met. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would fail to protect green space and would be in conflict with CS Policy G6.

The appeal site is located within a residential area characterised by dwellings with a traditional appearance where brick predominates. It is a relatively narrow, broadly rectangular parcel of land in between No 14 and No 1 that accommodates part of the PRoW network and mature trees and vegetation. The site’s open verdant qualities provide an appreciable degree of spaciousness within the street, creating a sense of place that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would introduce two detached dwellings at the site that would fill the width of the plot almost entirely because they would not be well separated from the plot boundaries on either side or from each other. The proposed scale and massing would erode the open qualities of the site and terminate the view on approach from the PRoW network, visually competing with the balance between spaces and buildings and weakening the planned layout and design quality of the area.

Despite the retention of the landscaped qualities of the south eastern part of the site, it would be readily apparent in views from several vantage points along [site address] that the appeal scheme would be a visually discordant addition in the street scene. The incongruous form of development would be exacerbated by the uncharacteristic design, arrangement of openings and materials palette which would not reflect the local context. In doing so it would fail to meet the provisions of the Framework that seek well designed places. In these circumstances the Framework states that development should be refused.

The proposal would result in the removal of four trees that I observed to be prominently positioned near the roadside, making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and having amenity value through public views from [site address] , [address] and the PRoW network. The trees to be removed are category C, and the higher category trees are to be retained at the rear of the site. Nevertheless, the loss of trees at the site would be detrimental to the prevailing character and appearance of the area and to the sense of place created by the landscaped and verdant setting. Moreover, there are no clear details that suitable replacement planting is proposed as required by Policy Land 2 of the Adopted Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan (2013) (NRWLP) to compensate for biodiversity loss and carbon storage.

The appellant has referred to several approved housing schemes in the wider area, and it is indicated that a permission for 33 dwellings included the appeal site. However, very limited details have been provided and so I am unable to make a meaningful comparison to the appeal scheme. In any event, I have come to my own view, based on the planning merits of the scheme before me.

To conclude, the proposal would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area, including trees. It would be in conflict with saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDPR), CS policies P10 and P12 and NRWLP Policy LAND2 insofar as these policies require that proposals resolve detailed design considerations, that should be based on contextual analysis and be appropriate to its location, scale and function, retaining and conserving trees wherever possible to protect distinctive townscape. UDPR saved Policy BD5 referred to on the decision notice has not been determinative as it is primarily concerned with amenity.

No [address] to the shared boundary and has an open outlook onto the front garden. The proposed dwelling on the western side of the appeal site would be located similarly close to the shared boundary. The position of the dwelling relative to No 14 would result in a significant proportion of the side elevation being experienced from the front facing windows and garden of No 14. This noticeable difference in built form would be a dominant feature, even above a boundary treatment, detrimental to the levels of outlook that could reasonably be expected by the occupiers. In addition, the proposal would obscure the sky, reducing the amount of daylight reaching No 14’s windows and garden, creating an environment that would affect the occupiers’ quality of life.

There would also be close range views from the proposed bedroom window on the western elevation into the front garden of No 14 that would negatively affect the privacy of the occupiers and the reasonable enjoyment of their garden. This is not a matter that can be resolved through the imposition of a condition in relation to obscure glazing as I cannot be confident that this would not have a harmful effect on outlook or daylight/sunlight for the proposal’s future occupiers. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the Framework seeking development that is appropriate for its location and a high standard of amenity.

The proposal would be very close to the shared boundary with No 1 which has no side windows facing the appeal site. The arrangement of windows on the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling is such that there would be no clear views into the garden areas of No 1. Any views from the rear facing windows of the proposal would be at an oblique angle and so there would be no significant consequences for privacy levels in the rear garden of No 1.

While the privacy of the occupiers of No 1 would not be unacceptably affected, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 14, with regard to outlook, daylight/sunlight and privacy. It would therefore be in conflict with UDPR saved Policy GP5 and CS Policy P10 which include a requirement for proposals to protect residential amenity and contribute to quality of life and wellbeing. UDPR saved Policy BD6 included on the decision notice relates to alterations and extensions and has not been determinative.

It is not disputed that the internal layout of the proposed dwellings would meet the required space standards and provide acceptable natural light and outlook. The area in front of the proposed dwellings would be dominated by parking provision leaving limited useable space for amenity. The proposed modestly sized rear gardens would therefore be the primary outdoor amenity area for future occupiers, and the only private external space.

Owing to the size of the rear gardens and the surrounding mature landscaping, they would be a largely uninviting space, indicative of the dominant development at the site arising from the proposal’s scale and form. They would therefore fail to offer good amenity, limiting how the amenity space could be used and what activities could take place. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence that the proposal would meet the guidance contained within the Neighbourhoods for Living Supplementary Planning Guidance (2003) that private gardens for family homes should have a minimum area of two thirds of the total gross floor area of the dwelling, excluding vehicular provision.

To conclude, the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the future occupiers, with regard to private amenity space, in conflict with UDPR saved Policy GP5 and CS Policy P10 which amongst other things, require proposals to contribute to quality of life and wellbeing.

The appeal site is located within a cul -de-sac where the speed limit is 20 miles per hour. Although the proposal would not generate a large number of traffic movements it does not automatically follow that it would have an acceptable effect on the safety of the local road network for all users.

While the appellant states that the site access benefits from clear visibility in both directions this is not supported in evidence. Even though the proposal would prevent the existing use of the turning head for car parking, there is no substantive evidence that cars could safely access and egress the proposed parking spaces at the appeal site in a forward gear or that manoeuvring in to the spaces would not introduce an unacceptable increase in the potential for conflict between road users. In coming to this view, I have taken into account that [site address] is a relatively narrow road without any road markings to delineate the carriageway and the objections of the Council’s Highways Team, which is a matter of notable consequence as they are responsible for the safety of users of the local network.

Even if the appeal site is not used as part of an emergency service route it forms part of the PRoW network and is a valued resource for local residents and the wider community for recreational benefits and connectivity, including by children who use it for convenient access to local schools. The proposed dwellings would not accommodate the entire appeal site; however the proposal would prevent the use of the PRoW network between [site address] and [address]. The proposal would not protect and enhance PRoWs and access as required by the Framework.

It is suggested that access through the site could be maintained by relocating the path to the western edge of the site along the boundary, the general location of which is shown in the appellant’s submissions. However, without detailed information there are limited assurances that this could be accommodated within the site. In any event, as acknowledged by the appellant, matters relating to the diversion or closure of a PRoW is beyond the scope of this appeal.

Overall, the proposal would reduce the convenience and practicality of travel choices that existing residents currently have. While alternative routes are available, they are not as convenient or direct, and I am mindful that increases in walking distance may pose a particular barrier for those with mobility issues. As such, the proposal would not promote sustainable transport modes for all users by reducing opportunities for walking. It would not give priority to pedestrian movements or create places that minimise the scope for conflicts between users and would not meet the provisions of the Framework in relation to promoting sustainable transport as a consequence.

In conclusion, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety, with regard to car parking and accessible routes for all. It would be in conflict with CS Policy T2 which includes a requirement for development to be located where it is adequately served by existing highways with safe and secure access and to provide adequately designed car parking provision.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021) establishes a statutory framework for BNG, under which, except for some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met (the biodiversity gain condition). There is no clear evidence that the proposal is for self-build dwellings in the context of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended), or that any other of the statutory exemptions are applicable. As such, the requirements of BNG are relevant to the proposal.

The statutory framework for BNG has been designed as a post-permission matter to ensure that the objective of achieving at least a 10% gain in biodiversity value will be met for development granted planning permission. Once planning permission has been granted, unless exempt, a Biodiversity Gain Plan must be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of that development. Amongst other things, this plan is the mechanism to ensure that biodiversity credits, if they are necessary for the development, have been purchased.

The submitted biodiversity net gain assessment indicates a net loss of biodiversity at the site but that the applicant, now appellant, has opted to purchase biodiversity credits from an offsite provider as compensation. There is no clear reason why this could not be addressed by the statutory post‐permission process and via the biodiversity gain condition.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would deliver the required BNG of 10% and would be in accordance with CS Policy G9 which requires development to demonstrate biodiversity net gains.

There is considerable support for boosting the supply of housing with good access to services. The proposed development would make a positive contribution to the supply of housing in the area on a small windfall site, which the appellant indicates can be built out relatively quickly. This is a clear benefit which given the scale of the proposal attracts limited positive weight. There would also be some limited economic benefits arising from expenditure by future occupiers. Although there is limited guarantee of the extent to which this would be directed to local businesses or services or contribute to the vitality of the surrounding area.

The appellant indicates there is an urgent need for the proposed development, as the landowner and family are facing eviction from their current home. In refusing to allow the proposal, the landowner would have to find alternative accommodation, so there could be interference with their human rights as set out in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.However, it does not automatically follow that not granting planning permission for the scheme would be a violation of their human rights

There is no substantive evidence that the proposal is the only option available to the landowner to secure suitable accommodation. Therefore, in this instance, dismissing the appeal would not be disproportionate when balanced against the need to uphold the operation of the planning system, which includes the requirement for development to accord with the adopted development plan; that being made and applied in the wider public interest.

[name] have not found any harm with regard to BNG, my above findings in relation to green space, character and appearance, living conditions and highway safety bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.