Appeal 6003805

The appeal is dismissed.

The site is within the Green Belt. However, it is common ground between the parties that the proposal would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. I have no reason to come to any other conclusion, and I will not therefore consider that matter further.

My site visit was made on an unaccompanied basis by viewing the appeal site from an adjacent public right of way (PROW). I was able to see enough of the site as well as the surrounding area to determine the appeal.

The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the development strategy for the area with regard to the location of housing. The second is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The site is served from [address] (A692) via an existing track which is also a PROW, known as [address]. Bus stops are available on the A692 close to the junction with [address], from where the evidence indicates regular bus services are available to amongst other places, Gateshead and Newcastle along with metro and rail hubs. Other bus stops could also be accessed by taking the right of way which runs to the west of the site towards Byermoor.

However, those bus services could be most directly accessed by using [address]. Whilst wide enough to allow a car and a pedestrian to pass, [address] is in poor condition, in the most part having a rough gravelled surface which is potholed and ridged with an irregular surface at various points along its length. The appellant appears to accept its poor condition. It is also unlit and has a sense of isolation immediately upon moving away from the A692. The walk up from the appeal site to the A692 involves a climb in elevation.

I accept the point that the Framework states that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that this should be taken into account in decision making.

However, the nature and condition of [address] would be likely to discourage its use by pedestrians and cyclists especially so during periods of poor weather and limited daylight. There would therefore be significant periods of the year when the appeal of utilising more sustainable modes of transport would be very limited leaving future residents largely reliant on the private car for many journeys.

There is a suggestion that a condition could be used to secure the upgrade and improvement of [address]. However, whilst legal matters are brought to my attention, I would have to firstly be sure that works would be undertaken. Secondly, I would need details as to what such upgrades would involve. There is nothing within the evidence which assure me that the Council would undertake improvement works or what those works would comprise of in detail.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development strategy for the area with regard to the location of housing which in broad terms seeks to promote sustainable development and ensure that development locations are well linked with public transport.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CS13 of the [name] for Gateshead and [site address] (2015) (CS) and Policy MSGP15 of the Gateshead Site Allocations and Development Management Policies - [name] for [name] (2021) (DMP) which amongst other things seek to ensure development minimises car trips, provides for direct, safe secure and continuous pedestrian and cycling links and require that new development gives priority to access by sustainable travel.

The evidence does not indicate a significant history of accidents at or around the junction of [address] with the A692 and [address] will invariably already be subject to some degree of existing use. There is nothing to indicate that boundary treatment around the junction with the A692 would cause a problem or that some form of arrangement could not be devised to accommodate waste collections from the site.

However, on my site visit I observed the presence of a ridge in the road closely to the west of the junction of [address] and the A692. In practical terms, its presence serves to partially screen the visibility of oncoming eastbound vehicles for a driver looking to exit the junction and head eastbound. This materially restricts the ability of drivers looking to join the eastbound carriageway to do so safely given that it creates a difficulty in seeing vehicles approaching from the west.

Vehicle speeds approaching the site do not appear to provide any mitigation and vehicles approaching from the west were travelling at high speed on a mid-week morning at the time of my site visit. The problem is likely to be greater in respect of lower vehicles, which are screened to a greater degree by the ridge in the road. Likewise, drivers sitting within a lower vehicle existing the [site address] access will have greater difficulty seeing vehicles than those sitting in a higher position driving taller vehicles.

There is little evidence presented on this critical matter and a substantial degree of reliance appears to be placed on a suggested fall-back position, which I shall deal with later.

The proposal would have a substantial adverse effect on highway safety. Consequently, the proposal would therefore further conflict with Policy CS13 of the CS and MSGP15 of the DMP, which amongst other things state that new development will be required to secure safe access to the site for all people, not have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the transport network and connect safely to existing transport networks.

The Council indicate that the proposal does not include full details of on-site landscaping to demonstrate how the stated increases in BNG could be achieved. However, I consider that a post development landscape plan which could include these details could be required via condition were I minded to allow the appeal.

The Council is also concerned that there is insufficient information regarding drainage of the site. There are particular concerns around whether the proposal is suited to public sewer connection with regard to distance as well as details relating to where the packaged treatment plant would drain to.

The appellant points to an existing watercourse which is currently used to discharge surface water from the site. Overall, whilst it would be useful if drainage matters were clearer, there is nothing compelling presented by the Council which leads me to believe that this matter could not be dealt with via condition were I minded to allow the appeal.

The proposal would therefore need not conflict with policies CS17 and CS18 of the CS nor policies MSGP29 or MSGP37 of the DMP which cover matters relating to these issues.

My attention has been drawn to a previous appeal decision1 at the site dating from

However, the development within that proposal differed significantly from that before me in terms of housing numbers and in part was considered on the basis of different development plan policy. I therefore afford this matter limited weight. 1 APP/H4505/W/16/3152790 - demolition of a dilapidated school house and the construction of 1 dwelling.

The site has a lawful use for storage and distribution which I am informed has been confirmed by way of a certificate of lawful use dating from 2002. Set against this, the clear focus for the site appears to be to secure a residential scheme rather than using the site for the lawful storage and distribution use. Despite this, given the lawful use of the site there is a real prospect that the site could be utilised in that manner.

However, as is evidenced by the appellant, vehicle movements associated with the lawful use are more likely to involve some larger vehicles including vans and HGV’s.

It would appear that there would be some light vehicle movements associated with staff movements for the lawful use. However, these are estimated within the range of [address] set against an upper end estimate of [address] vehicle movements for the proposal before me, which would mainly be light vehicles.

[name] accept that larger vehicles could be slower and that there could be less movements associated with the proposed use, larger vehicles are more likely to support a driver within a higher position within the vehicle which would afford them greater visibility of vehicles on the A692.

Therefore, any potential increase in movements of light vehicles against the fall-back position would significantly increase risk to highway safety at the site and I consider that the fallback position would be less harmful than the proposal before me. I therefore afford this matter limited weight.

Whilst carrying out the site visit, I noted the presence of an agricultural building close to the site containing livestock. However, given my position on the main issues which were based on the principle matters of disagreement between the main parties, this matter has not been determinative to the appeal and I have not considered it further.

It appears that the appellant received pre application advice from the Council which did not appear to identify concern over the matters on which the application was refused. However, my consideration has been made based on my own impartial assessment of the planning merits of the case and I afford that matter limited weight.

The evidence indicates that the Council are unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (5YHLS) with the level of supply indicated to be 3.07 years. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is therefore relevant. Paragraph 11d) i) is not relevant in this case.

The proposal would conflict with the development strategy for the area with regard to the location of housing and there would be a substantial risk to the safety of those using the highway. There would subsequently be conflict with Policy CS13 of the CS and Policy MSGP15 of the DMP. The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

In the context of a notable shortfall of 5YHLS there would be benefits associated with the proposal which would include the provision of 4no. dwellings which would contribute to housing supply.

The proposal would deliver environmental improvement to the site which is in poor condition and there would be social and economic benefits including local spend in the construction and operational phase. Biodiversity net gain in excess of the mandatory requirement could be achieved. These are benefits which are cumulatively afforded significant weight.

The development plan policies with which the proposal would conflict align with the Framework which seeks to secure sustainable development and which advises that development can be refused on highways grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

[name] accept the benefits of the proposal, which themselves find favour with the Framework including with its aims to significantly boost the supply of homes and other aims, I afford the conflict with development plan policies substantial weight.

The harm arising from the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such, considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan with which the proposal would conflict.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.