Appeal 6003038

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

The application form refers to ‘Woodhouse’. However, ‘[address]’ is used throughout the evidence and reflects the building’s signage and for consistency, I have used [address] throughout my decision.

The Council provided its statement after the deadline set out in the appeal timetable and provided a reason for the late submission. The appellant was given opportunity to respond to the Council’s submissions in their final comments. Therefore, no party would be prejudiced by my acceptance of the statement.

The Council did not determine the application within the prescribed period. Within the initial questionnaire, the Council indicated that it would have refused permission on two grounds, including the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and a failure to submit adequate information in respect of [name] (BNG). However, the Council’s statement indicates it would also have refused permission on a further three grounds, relating to living conditions; provision of cycle and refuse storage, and whether mitigation against tree loss and off-site BNG would be secured.

I have had regard to the parties’ submissions in establishing the main issues which I set out below.

Having regard to the above, the main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area; • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions of future occupiers with regard to outlook, and the effect on living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with specific regard to outlook, and external amenity space; • whether the proposal would provide adequate cycle and refuse storage; and • whether the statutory biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged.

[site address] is part of a larger planned semi-circular estate. At the centre of the estate is a large green space, where footpaths and roads connect [address] shopping area with the wider estate. The proposal would provide two supported living bungalows sited on the corner of [site address] and [address], occupying a visually prominent location within the street scene. Also located around the junction is a primary school, playground and dwellings. It is from here that the layout of the planned estate can be appreciated, with clear views of the green, and the curved layout of [site address] apparent.

There is variation in the treatment of corner plots within the estate, with some generally spacious and open, and others developed in appearance. However, the junction of [site address] and [address] is verdant and open in character, owing in part to the trees and hedges at this corner, together with the absence of buildings near to the junction.

The appeal site contributes positively to this open character, creating space between [address] and the junction, which can be seen above and beyond the existing timber fence. In addition, trees within the site provide important greenery which softens the appearance of the built environment.

Although the scale and massing of buildings on [site address] are varied, there is a broad consistency to the plot coverage and position within the plot, each having an area of garden or hardstanding separating the building from the road. The supported living bungalows would introduce built form near to the junction of [site address] and [address] which would occupying a large proportion of the site. Despite the proposed use of red brick, the siting of the bungalows would be inconsistent with the prevailing pattern of development in terms of site coverage and it’s position near to the junction. As a result, the proposal would appear cramped and at odds with the plot coverage and pattern of development around the junction.

A variety of boundary treatments are used throughout the estate, including red brick walls. The existing timber fence would be replaced with a brick wall of a comparable height. Whilst the proposed bungalows would be low in height relative to surrounding buildings, they would be taller than the proposed brick boundary wall and therefore would be clearly visible within the street scene. The bungalows together with the brick wall, would introduce built form into this location, harmfully eroding the openness of the appeal site and area surrounding the junction.

Individually, the two trees proposed to be removed are modest, low-quality specimens of limited arboricultural and visual value. However, they of cumulative value through the tree cover they offer to the [address] frontage, providing important greenery which softens the built environment. Therefore, the proposed loss of trees would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Policy DM17 of the Bristol Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) (Local Plan) requires that losses of trees be compensated in accordance with its standards. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer advises that the planting of five trees would be required, with planting both within the site and off-site, such as at land on the opposite side of [address]. Whilst the appellant suggests tree planting would be secured through a financial contribution to the Council, I have been provided no details of any mechanism by which to secure this payment. [name] cannot be certain that the loss of trees would be adequately mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies DM2, DM21, DM26, DM27 and DM29 of the Local Plan and Policies BCS20 and BCS21 of the Bristol Development Framework: [name] (2011) ([name]), which collectively seek to ensure that proposals contribute positively to an area’s character and identity, and are appropriate to the immediate context and character of adjoining streets and spaces. In particular, they seek to ensure that all new development should integrate important existing trees.

The bedroom and living room of each bungalow would be single aspect, looking out onto a small courtyard. A tall brick wall would bound the courtyards of each of the proposed bungalows. The height of the boundary wall and siting close to the bedroom and living room window of each bungalow would restrict views and result in future occupants experiencing poor outlook.

The proposed development would be sited close to [address], within its communal garden. The proposal would therefore result in the loss of a significant area of the existing outdoor amenity space at [address]. Whilst the appellant asserts the area of garden is underutilised, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the remaining area of outdoor amenity space would be sufficient to meet the needs of the occupants of [address].

Further, the bungalows would appear prominent beyond the timber fence, and would have an overbearing impact on the remaining communal outdoor amenity space used by the residents of [address]. The limited size of the outdoor amenity space, combined with the introduction of build form on the site would result in a harmful sense of enclosure which would erode the quality of the communal outdoor amenity space.

As set out above, having particular regard to outlook, the proposal would fail to achieve a suitable standard of living conditions for future occupiers. In addition, the proposal would adversely impact the external amenity space at [address] and would therefore harm the living conditions of its occupants. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM2, DM27 and DM29 of the Local Plan, and [name] 18, BCS20 and BCS21 of the [name], which collectively seek to ensure that proposed development provides appropriate and usable private or communal amenity space, together with achieving appropriate levels of outlook for neighbouring occupants.

The proposal does not indicate how cycle parking and refuse storage facilities would be accommodated within the site. I acknowledge there would be a functional relationship between the proposal and [address]. However, I have not been provided any details of how such facilities would be provided across the sites. Therefore, I cannot be certain that satisfactory cycle and refuse storage would be provided to meet the needs of future occupants of the proposed development.

The proposal fails to demonstrate it would provide adequate cycle and refuse storage. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM23 and DM32 of the Local Plan, and Policy BCS15 of the [name]. Collectively, they seek to ensure that development addresses operational waste and recycling, and provides an appropriate level of safe, secure accessible and usable parking provision, having regard to cycling.

BNG is a mandatory requirement of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Unless exempt, the TCPA requires development to provide a biodiversity value which exceeds the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat by at least 10% and requires the post-development value be maintained for at least 30 years.

The statutory framework for BNG involves the discharge of the biodiversity gain condition following the grant of planning permission. The determination of the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) under this condition is the mechanism to confirm whether the development meets the biodiversity gain objective and development cannot commence until the BGP is approved. The Planning Practice Guidance indicates it would generally be inappropriate to refuse planning permission on grounds the biodiversity gain objective will not be met but indicates decision makers may need to consider more broadly whether the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged (Paragraph: 019 [name]: 74- [phone]).

The BNG metric submitted with the application was inaccurate, since it showed the loss of only one tree, and therefore the proposal did not contain the minimum information required by Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Whist the appellant suggests the BNG metric was subsequently updated to provide an accurate baseline, the acknowledge the proposed development would result in a deficit against the pre-development biodiversity value.

The appellant asserts that off-site mitigation would be provided through purchase of off-site BNG units. However, no mechanism, such as a legal agreement, has been provided to secure such mitigation. Consequently, in the absence of a legal agreement, the proposal fails to demonstrate that at least 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat would be achieved, and maintained and monitored for at least 30 years.

For these reasons, the proposal fails to demonstrate the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged and would therefore conflict with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the TCPA.

As such, the proposal would not accord with Policies DM17 and DM19 of the Local Plan, and Policies BCS9 and BCS11 of the [name], which identify that developments should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an appropriate type, standard and size, and where loss of nature conservation arises, development would be expected to provide mitigation off-site.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster food relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s disability.

The proposal would provide two bungalows that would each be occupied by one person. The provision of the bungalows seek to support independent living where life skills could be learned in a safe and supported environment for those with protected characteristics.

However, I have found the proposal would fail to provide adequate living conditions for those future occupants and would harm the living conditions of existing occupants of [address] who also share protected characteristics. Therefore, there would be an overall adverse effect on persons with protected characteristics. I give great importance to this matter, which carries significant weight against the proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the development plan, with the associated conflict reflecting harm to character and appearance of the area, to living conditions of future and neighbouring occupants, the provision of BNG, and the provision of cycle and refuse storage. For these reasons, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Currently, Bristol City Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework explains that in these circumstances, planning 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.

Paragraph 135 of the Framework requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area, be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment, and promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. In addition, Framework paragraph 187 requires development provide net gains for biodiversity. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and the policies of the development plan set out above carries significant weight in this appeal.

Set against this harm, the proposal would make a positive contribution to housing supply, supporting the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. In addition, the proposed development would make a small, positive contribution to the transition to net zero, set out in Framework paragraph 161, through providing air source heat pumps and solar panels to enhance the environmental sustainability of the scheme. However, the scale of benefits associated with two additional dwellings would be modest.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and area, the living conditions of persons with protected characteristics, biodiversity, and the provision of refuse and cycle storage, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.