Appeal 6003274

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential (C3) development on land to the rear of [site address] for up to 1 dwelling, at [site address] , Bedminster, Bristol [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/10558/PIP.

A separate application for costs is made by [name] against the decision of Bristol City Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The proposal is for permission in principle (PiP). Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle, and the second ‘technical details consent’ (TDC) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for PiP is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if PiP is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The Council refused the application on the basis of the suitability of the location for the proposed land use, residential accommodation, with regards to access for vehicles and pedestrians. The appellant contends that access is outside the scope of the considerations of PiP. However, the issue of safe access to the highway could reasonably fall within the ambit of location. The appellant has provided examples of other appeals where access was not considered as part of the PiP stage. However, I have not been provided with any detailed evidence that the examples were in a similar arrangement or had a similar relationship to the highway as the proposed development before me. As such, I have considered access as part of my consideration of location in this appeal.

The PPG is clear that the amount of development must be expressed as a range, indicating the minimum and maximum net number of dwellings which are, in principle, permitted. The appellant has indicated on the application form that they are applying for a minimum of 1 dwelling, up to a maximum of 1 dwelling. However, the description of development on the application form and the Councils decision notice did not indicate the amount of residential development permitted. The parties confirmed that the description of development should be changed from “Residential (C3) development on land to the rear of [site address] .” to “Residential (C3) development on land to the rear of [site address] for up to 1 dwelling.”. I have therefore used the altered description of development in the banner heading and my decision in the interests of precision and accuracy and to satisfy the wording of the PPG.

The main issue is therefore whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use, and amount of development.

The site would be accessed from [address]. When entering [address] from [address], Nos [address] are positioned around a turning circle, which has a pavement. [address] continues along an access lane to the right of No 9, where the garages and parking areas of the dwellings fronting [address], including [site address] , are accessed. In addition, another dwelling, [address], and a commercial unit and yard are accessed from further along the access lane.

The site comprises the end of the garden of No 195 which is partially covered by a single storey garage, which the appellant has indicated would be demolished. The proposal would be located only a short way down the access lane. Although the appeal site fronts the access lane, it is perpendicular to the front garden of [address] and would therefore contribute to the residential frontages. The lane provides access for vehicular movements and parking for the dwellings fronting [address], as well as the commercial [address].

The Council asserts that the site would not provide suitable access for vehicles and pedestrians and therefore would not be suitably located. The appeal site comprises a garage, and neighbouring dwellings also have garages and parking areas which are accessed from the lane. While there is no separate pedestrian footpath, the lane would be a shared surface with a low volume of traffic where vehicles travel at low speeds. The junction from the turning circle into the lane has good visibility, and owing to the proximity of the appeal site to the turning circle which has a footpath, pedestrians would only need to walk along the shared surface for a short distance. Given that the lane is already used for vehicular access to garages and parking areas, as well as by pedestrians accessing the rear of the existing dwellings, access to the appeal site would also be acceptable along the shared surface.

A pedestrian access lane, which links [address] to [address] between 197 and [address], is overgrown and currently impassable. Despite this, alternative safe pedestrian access can be achieved on pavements along [address], which is linked to [address] by [address].

The proposal would be located in a residential area of Bristol within a reasonable walking distance of several shopping areas, together with access to public transport. Accordingly, it would comply with Policy BCS10 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (2014) ([name]). The area has a fine urban grain where dwellings are arranged in terraces, forming a high residential density. Given the prevailing pattern of development, the proposal would comply with Policy DM21 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) (Local Plan), which supports development in locations where higher densities are appropriate.

The proposal would also comply with Policy DM21 of the Local Plan which states that development involving the loss of gardens will not be permitted unless the proposal would represent a more efficient use of land at a location where higher densities are more appropriate. In this case, the land use would be acceptable in principle as the proposal would be sited on garden land in an area with a fine urban grain.

The appellant seeks PiP for a single dwelling. While the size and layout of the proposed dwelling would be secured at the TDC stage, the Council identify that based on the Department for Communities and Local Government Nationally Described Space Standards (2015), the site is large enough to accommodate at least a one bedroom, two bedspace dwelling. I agree with that assessment, therefore the amount of development would be acceptable in principle.

Accordingly, I conclude that the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location and proposed land use, with specific regard to access. Therefore, the proposal would accord with Policies DM23, DM27 and DM29 of the Local Plan and Policies BCS10 and BCS21 of the [name] which collectively seek to ensure that development promotes accessibility, and provides inclusive, safe and adequate access for all sections of the community, as well as setting out the transport user priorities.

For the reasons given above, the proposal is in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.