Appeal 6003837

The appeal is dismissed.

The application is in outline with access to be considered as a detailed matter, with layout, appearance, scale and landscaping reserved for future consideration.

A site plan has been provided which does illustrate the location of a property, however this is indicative only.

The main issues in this case are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for housing having regard to the development plan for the area; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for housing having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

Policies CP1 and CP2 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 – 2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (2014) (LP) set out the spatial strategy for the area. These policies seek to direct the majority of development towards the principal settlements with new development tailored to meet local needs in primary and secondary villages. Development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled but may exceptionally be permitted in line with the provisions of Policy CP4.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land sat next to an existing dwelling nearby some sporadic development in a rural area. From the information before me, the site is outside any defined settlement boundary and as such for the purposes of the development plan, the appeal site is located in the open countryside. None of the circumstances outlined in LP Policy CP4 are applicable to the appeal scheme and consequently the proposal conflicts with the development plan for the area.

I conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for housing having regard to the development plan for the area. It therefore conflicts with [name] CP1 and CP2 which together seek to direct development towards larger settlements and to strictly control development in the open countryside.

The appeal site consists of a part of the garden area of Hillcrest, a large two storey dwelling set in a large plot. The surrounding properties are also of a substantial two storey size set in generous plots, resulting in a consistent, spacious character.

The proposed plot is considerably smaller than the established pattern of development. The proposal is for outline permission where matters of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping are reserved for further consideration.

Nevertheless, a single storey dwelling would be out of keeping with the consistent two storey scale of the nearby dwellings. Moreover, even a modest dwelling as indicated in the indicative site plan, noticeably smaller in footprint than the nearby properties, would appear hemmed in and close to the boundaries of the small plot, harming the existing spacious character of the surroundings. This would be exacerbated if the dwelling would be two storeys in scale.

The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with [name] DP1 and DP7 which, amongst other matters seek to ensure that proposals are of a high-quality design that are formulated with an appreciation of the built context.

LP Policy CP1 designates Mells as a Primary Village, with key community facilities including a primary school, public house, recreation ground and pavilion, café and village shop.

The appeal site is sufficiently close by that these facilities are within walking and cycling access. The rural lanes are unlit and have no pavement, even in the case of some parts close to the centre of the settlement. Nevertheless, given the short distances involved, and the open flat grassed verges to the road or number of dwellings providing sufficient places to provide pedestrian refuge from passing vehicles, there is a sufficiently safe and convenient alternative to the use of a private car. The appeal site is therefore reasonably well connected.

Accordingly, the intended future occupiers of the new dwelling would not necessarily be likely to have a high reliance on a private motor vehicle to access day to day services.

Consequently, I conclude that there is no conflict therefore with LP Policy DP9 which requires development, where appropriate, to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport (particularly by means other than the private car).

The proposed site plan includes the location of the access, two parking spaces and a turning area. However, no detail in terms of sight lines, radii or tracking plans for example have been provided.

Access is a matter for consideration as a detailed matter. [name] satisfied that the site is sufficiently large to accommodate the required parking and turning space, there is no information before me to demonstrate that the submitted access, as illustrated on the site plan, is sufficiently wide or provides sufficient visibility to enable safe means of access from the highway.

The approval of the submitted details would not therefore be appropriate, and a condition requiring further details could result in alterations to these submitted details. Such conditions would not therefore be appropriate.

The proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on highway safety and would conflict with the highway safety goals of LP Policy DP9.

The appeal site is located within the Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation, which is a European Site as defined by the Habitats Regulations. Consequently, it is necessary for me to consider the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC.

The Mells Valley SAC is important for the [name]. The Conservation Objectives for the SAC is to ensure the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of the [name]. An assessment of the proposed possible effect on the integrity of the SAC is therefore necessary.

No information or assessments regarding this designation has been submitted by the appellant. However, given that, as set out below, I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I am not pursuing this matter further because it could not lead me to a different decision.

The appellant refers to a lack of contact and possible visit from the Council. This does not alter the conclusions I have reached below regarding conflict with the

The proposal would result in an additional unit of accommodation which would contribute to the Government’s broader objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The development would make efficient use of the site, as supported by the Framework. The proposal would also result in a short-term economic benefits arising from the construction process. Economic and social benefits are also likely to arise from the occupation of the new dwelling. However, given the quantum of development in this case, each of these benefits would be modest.

[name] CP1 and CP2 are broadly consistent with the Framework where it states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth and seeks to maximise sustainable transport solutions. Nevertheless, given the significant short fall in housing supply, this conflict is given minor weight. However, [name] DP1 and DP7 are also consistent with the Framework where it seeks to achieve well-designed places. The conflict with these policies should be given substantial weight in this appeal. Additionally, the Framework is clear that it should be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. As such, conflict with LP Policy DP9 should also be given substantial weight in this appeal. Given the conflict identified above, the development would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council confirms that they are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and put the current figure at 2.84 years supply. Notwithstanding issues relating to a habitats site as set out above, the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is therefore engaged.

The proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and be built out quickly. Whilst the scale of the proposal is limited, given the considerable scale of the shortfall identified, this attracts moderate weight.

The economic and social benefits from the build and occupation of the dwelling as well as support for local services, facilities and the community, including those in other villages would be limited given the size of the development, and their weight in favour of the scheme is modest.

The Framework supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. Nevertheless, whilst the development is described as such, there is no mechanism before to secure the proposal as self build. As such, this carries little weight in favour of the proposal.

The proposal would conflict with the Framework where it seeks to actively manage patterns of growth, achieve well-designed places and ensure safe and suitable access. Given the importance the Framework gives to achieving well-designed places and safe access, I give significant weight to these matters.

Consequently, the adverse impacts set out above would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission is refused.