Appeal 6003840

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form described the proposal as “Demolition of existing garage and proposed erection of part semi-detached dwellings”. The Council amended this to “Demolition of existing garage and the erection of two semi-detached dwellings with parking together with new/altered vehicle and pedestrian access” and this is the description of development that appears on the Decision Notice. I have used the description as it appears on the Decision Notice in my banner heading as this more accurately describes the proposal.

The main issues in this appeal are: - • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; • Whether the site is a suitable location for residential development, having regard to access to goods and services; • Whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers; • The effect of the proposal on the supply of protected open space; • The effect of the proposal on protected species, with particular regard to bats; • Whether the proposal makes suitable provision for biodiversity; • The effect of the proposal on highway safety; and : - • Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site (the site) lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as identified in Dartford Borough’s Local Plan to 2037 (2024) (the Local Plan).

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of certain exceptions apply, whilst Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Policy M12 of the Local Plan sets out the required criteria for development located within the Green Belt. The wording in Policy M12 is similar to the NPPF. Thus, Policy M12 accords closely with the aims set out within Part 13 of the Framework, which seeks to protect Green Belt.

The exceptions, set out within Paragraph 154 include: • Replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; • Limited infilling in villages; and: - • Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The Framework identifies the fundamental aim of the Green Belt as “to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence”. The openness of the Green Belt has both a visual and spatial dimension.

The proposal would infill a gap in a built frontage. However, the site does not lie within a defined settlement, as identified in the Local Plan and is located within the countryside for planning purposes. It lies within a small linear development, with no facilities, other than a nearby day nursery and is separated from the nearest settlements, Lane and Dartford, by open fields. As such the proposal would not constitute infilling in a village.

It will be seen, below, that I consider the site to constitute previously developed land. Whilst the design of the building is not out of keeping with nearby development, the proposed pair of semi-detached dwellings would nonetheless be considerably higher and wider than the building that they would replace, occupying most of the width of the plot. Thus, the development would lead to a significant loss of openness in spatial terms.

Even were I to consider that the building would remain in the same use, the proposed built form would be substantially larger than the garage that it would replace.

The proposal would be highly visible from the street. It would thus be readily apparent, and therefore obvious, to observers. The increase in built form within the site would, thus, result in a reduction in the visual openness of the Green Belt as well as spatial openness and, given the scale of the impact this would constitute significant harm.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out four basic criteria for housing that must be satisfied to establish that a development site would not be inappropriate.

The first of these requires that the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.

Grey belt land is defined in the glossary of the Framework as “land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph

‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”

Considering firstly whether the site is previously developed land and, having reference to the definition of such in the Framework, the land is closely associated with its neighbour, having formed part of its garden. The land lies outside of any defined settlement. Further it contains a substantial garage and a significant proportion of its area is laid as hard standing. The proposal thus fulfils the first of the criteria. However, it still needs to be considered against the second part.

Paragraph 143 of the Framework identifies that there are five purposes to the Green Belt, namely: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

For the purposes of the assessment, it is necessary that the land must make no strong contribution to purposes a), b) or d).

Having regard to purpose a) and b), the site would infill a gap in an otherwise built-up frontage, and to the rear lies residential curtilage. It would, thus, not contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area. Similarly, it would not contribute towards merging any neighbouring towns.

Being visually contained within an existing ribbon of development the site would not affect the setting and special character of historic towns. I therefore find that the site is Grey Belt.

With regard to the first criterion of Paragraph 155 of the Framework, I have already found that the proposal would not undermine purposes a), b) or d) of the Green Belt. The site is physically constrained and would not encroach further into the countryside than existing built form. Thus, it would not undermine purpose c).

Having regard to purpose e) there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the development of the site would, given the small scale of the development, discourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land to any marked degree.

The proposal thus passes criterion a) of Paragraph 155.

However, the Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. As such, whilst the proposal would contribute to the availability of housing within the Borough, there is no demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed and the proposal fails criterion b) of Paragraph 155.

Having regard to the sustainability of the location of the site, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework, there are bus stops within reasonable walking distance of the site and these provide services towards Dartford, Bluewater, Longfield, and New Ash Green. However, the services do not run frequently, there being a bus roughly every one-and-a-half hours during the day. I note that there are school services that provide for the specific needs of students.

Waller Park, an outdoor recreation facility, is within reasonable walking distance for pedestrians, as are a variety of local shops, including a supermarket and a convenience store, to the south of the site. Immediately adjacent to the site is a day nursery. Schools are, however, further away, outside of the range normally considered walkable.

The roads near the site are relatively flat and have streetlights. However, the lack of dedicated cycle facilities, the complexity of nearby junctions and the speeds of traffic on local roads would be likely to deter less confident cyclists and those accompanied by children. Footways are, in some parts, narrow and incomplete, requiring pedestrians to cross roads carrying vehicles at higher speeds, with no controlled facilities for doing so. This would be likely to deter walking, particularly when accompanied by children or carrying heavy shopping, or during the hours of darkness or inclement weather. Thus, taken overall it is likely that the proposal would be heavily reliant on the private car to meet its day-to-day travel needs.

Paragraphs 110 and [address] particular emphasis on providing realistic travel alternatives using more sustainable modes of transport. Such choices for this site are limited.

[name] 110 identifies that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making, the opportunities for the use of more sustainable modes at the site are poor, with little realistic scope, given the scale of development, for improvement.

Paragraph 115 specifically requires that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. It will be seen, below, that it has not been demonstrated that safe access can be provided at this site. Thus, the proposal fails when considered against criterion c) of Paragraph 155.

The application is not a major development for housing and therefore criterion d) is not relevant. However, from the foregoing, the proposal fails the tests set out in Paragraph 155.

The appellant has brought to my attention a previous permission on the site, Council Reference: 17/02099/FUL, for the extension and conversion of the garage. The current proposal is materially different, relating to the demolition of the garage and construction of two substantial dwellings. Thus, the proposal would have a different impact on the openness of the site. The Council also identify that circumstances, including National and Local Planning Policy have changed in the intervening period, and that there have been material changes affecting the site, including changes to bus services, and therefore transport sustainability, and this has not been disputed by the appellant. I therefore give the matter of the previous permission on the site very limited weight in my considerations.

Thus, whilst I find that the proposal would not be contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt, I conclude that the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the Local Plan, and the effects on the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposal lies within an existing linear development of mixed scale and design fronting the street. The closest dwellings to the site, and others further to the north, lie in spacious plots and the footprint of the building allows for generous rear gardens and landscaping to the front. These are features contributing positively to the overall spacious, verdant character and appearance of the area.

However, between these lies a row of terraced properties whose front gardens have been converted to accommodate car parking. The domination of car parking on this frontage is an unsightly feature in the locality, giving the terrace a cramped, constrained appearance.

In contrast to those dwellings closest to the site the footprint of the proposal would occupy a much more significant proportion of the plots, undermining the existing grain of development. Further, it would occupy much of the width of the plot, and its frontage would be dominated by car parking, reflecting more closely the appearance of the terraced frontage.

By introducing a more cramped layout, dominated by car parking, into the southern part of the ribbon of residential development, the proposal would harmfully undermine the positive characteristics of the area that I have identified above.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. This would be contrary to the aims of Policies M1 and M10 of the Local Plan. This is because these policies, together, seek, amongst other things, to ensure that all development, including new dwellings, responds to, reinforces and enhances positive aspects of the locality, and preserves the historical pattern and form of development.

The Council’s seeks, within its spatial strategy, as set out in Policy S1 of the Local Plan, to locate development where it will utilise brownfield land that is not within the Green Belt and sites with good access by public transport and walking/ cycling to a range of local supporting services and facilities.

Policy S3 of the Local Plan seeks to locate development where it will minimise carbon emissions and reduce the need for unsustainable travel, embedding with development the use of sustainable and active and more sustainable travel modes.

Policy S5 sets out that outside of specific allocations within the Local Plan, residential development will be supported where the benefits of the proposal outweigh the disbenefits, including the sustainability of the site’s location.

The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment uses a distance of 400m to a station or a bus stop with at least two buses an hour each way, for a site of the scale being considered, as having reasonable access to public transport, and this same standard is applied to windfall sites. The Council also takes into account the usefulness of the service.

Developments should be within easy walking distance of community facilities along a usable and good quality route. The Council considers that a maximum walking distance of up to 800m to a range of public services and shops is an acceptable standard and I have no reason to disagree.

Policy S5 identifies that residential development should be accessible to a range of local amenities using more sustainable modes. I have considered access to walking, cycling and public transport above and identified the deficiencies of the site in this regard when considered against the guidance provided within Paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

Bringing these matters together the proposal is likely to be heavily reliant on the use of the private car to meet the everyday needs of future occupiers.

The site is not a suitable location for housing, having regard to access to goods and services. It would, therefore. be contrary to the aims of Policies S1 and S3, whose aims I set out above.

Policy S5 requires a balance between the benefits to be gained from the proposal and the harms that it would cause. I will return to this later.

As such the residential development of the site, by virtue of its unsustainable location is considered to be contrary to both local and national planning policy.

Each of the proposed dwellings would provide around 67m2 of private amenity space, in the form of gardens. However, some of this would be occupied by cycle storage. The Council, within paragraph 5.90 of the preamble to Policy M9 of the Local Plan, identifies that a minimum private amenity space of 60m2 should be achieved for new development, but notes that, outside the urban area, such as is the case here, much larger gardens should be delivered.

The proposal would, as I have identified, provide gardens that are significantly smaller than the surrounding properties and the restricted size would not provide a good level of private amenity spaces in comparison.

The proposal is located within walking distance of Waller Park and the occupiers would have access to outdoor recreational space. However, this would not be the equivalent of private amenity space of their own.

I therefore find that the proposal would not provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers and this would be contrary to the aims of Policies M2 and M9 of the Local Plan in as much as these seek to ensure that residential development provides sufficient and high quality amenity space to meet the health, recreation and functional needs of occupants and that development is designed to avoid unacceptable material impacts, individually or cumulatively, on public health.

The Council identifies that the front eastern part of the application site is within an area of Borough Open Space, and the southeastern corner of the site is designated [name], known as Green Street Green. This has not been disputed by the appellant.

Policy M3 of the Local Plan seeks to prevent development on Borough Open Space unless it is clearly demonstrated that one of two criteria is satisfied. Either, where the space will be retained in its current primary function, with development limited to a small proportion of land, the proposal must support or enhance the existing space in this overall green infrastructure role. The proposal must not lead to any significant loss or deterioration in quantity and level of open space provision; or where development will result in a significant loss in the quantity of open space, like for like re-provision must be delivered within easy, safe and secure walking distance of the site, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the existing provision is surplus to current and future requirements for biodiversity and/ or the amenity and health/wellbeing of residents. The replacement must be shown to be of an equivalent type and of equal or greater quantity and quality to that being lost.

The parking for the proposed dwellings would occupy the site frontage, hardening most of it, but leaving an area of soft landscaping either side, with a strip of planting between the parking area for each plot. This would result in the loss of Borough Open Space, and the small areas of landscaping would not provide suitable compensation for this.

I therefore find that the proposal would result in a reduction in the supply of protected open space, contrary to the aims of Policy M13 of the Local Plan.

Bats and their roosts are protected from disturbance and harm through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). Some species of bat are also listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and [name] (NERC) Act 2006 as Species of [name] for conservation.

The site lies within a well treed rural area which could provide suitable habitat for bats. It contains a garage in a poor state of repair and during my site visit I observed potential points of ingress for bats. There is thus potential for the building to contain bat roosts. Demolishing the building would, if any bats are present, roosting within the garage, result in the loss of the roosting site.

Within his appeal statement the appellant accepts that insufficient information relating to bats was submitted. However, he identifies that an [name] on site found no evidence of bats and negligible potential for bat roosting places. However, whilst it would appear that an [name] was submitted to accompany the application, this was rejected by the Council as they did not consider that it had been drawn up by a qualified Ecologist. No such document has been submitted with this appeal.

Paragraph 99 of the Office of the [name] (ODPM) Circular 06/2005 (the Circular), states “it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision” and that “The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances”. I find that there is a reasonable chance of the presence of a bat roost on the site and there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the building is devoid of roosts. Under these circumstances, and mindful of the guidance given in the Circular, a condition requiring a bat survey prior to commencement of the development would be inappropriate.

Whilst the appellant refers to policy relating to developments within 6-10 km of the North Kent Special Protection Areas (SPAs), the development lies outside of the 10km buffer zone for the identified SPA and therefore the policy is not relevant.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on protected species, with particular regard to bats. This would be contrary to Policy M14 of the Local Plan, which aims to protect and enhance biodiversity and requires that proposed development located on or in close proximity to priority species, or with potential effects on them, must demonstrate that it will not adversely impact on the biodiversity value.

It is a statutory requirement that the proposal must provide a 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG). There are no local policy requirements that would require any greater amount of BNG.

The appellant has provided a plan1 illustrating measures to provide BNG, supported by a calculation sheet2. However, there is conflicting information provided as to the site area referred to in the application form and the biodiversity metric calculations tool of around 300m2.

Further there is dispute regarding the baseline calculations. The site has been largely cleared and contains piles of spoil and rubble. It is unclear whether, or not, this occurred during the implementation of a recent planning permission3 or before. 1 [name]: Y2131_2024 2 [name]-105229623 3 Council Ref: 23/01220/FUL

The Council refers to aerial imagery that demonstrated that clearance took place some time between November 2023 and April 2024, whereas the appellant has stated that there has been no habitat degradation on site on or after 30th January 2020.

The habitat baseline is stated by the appellant as bare ground and other neutral grassland. That may not be the case if the land had been cleared at the later date.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Schedule 7A seeks to discourage developers from engaging in site clearance prior to making a planning application. The legislation requires that, if habitat degradation or loss has occurred on an application site on or after 30 January 2020, “the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat is to be taken to be its biodiversity value immediately before the carrying on of the activities.”

However, this does not apply if the activities were carried out in accordance with a planning permission before 25 August 2023 or if the activities were carried out in accordance with a planning permission after 25 August 2023, if the consented development has been completed. Whilst it is possible that the implemented permission, if completed, would set the baseline, there is no certainty that this is the case. On the basis of the evidence before me I cannot be certain that the calculation for BNG is correct.

I therefore find that the proposal does not make suitable provision for biodiversity. This would be contrary to the aims of Policy M14 of the Local Plan, in as much as this seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity, and the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

The road fronting the site is subject to a 40MPH speed limit. Kent County Council, who are the Local Highway Authority (LHA) assessed the need for vehicle-to-vehicle visibility splays as 104 metres at a set-back of 2.4 metres. This would need to be provided in either direction and be measured from the point of set-back to the nearside kerb and measured to the nearside kerb. No empirical data has been submitted by the appellant to demonstrate that a relaxation of this requirement is appropriate. The appellants have provided a plan, [name]: Y2038_A01 showing visibility splays of half the distance required by the LHA.

Further, visibility splays are required to be clear of visual obstruction over 0.6 metres high. The drawing provided by the appellant shows minimal detail outside the site and I cannot be certain that the splay would lie entirely within the control of either the appellant or the LHA, or that there would be no obstruction to visibility within it.

On the basis of the evidence before me it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide adequate visibility splays to allow the driver of an emerging vehicle to see an approaching car, or for the driver of a car approaching the access to see a vehicle emerging.

Under the circumstances a collision could occur and that may result at speeds that could result in life-changing injury or even death. The proposal would thus be detrimental to highway safety.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety. This would be contrary to the aims of Policies M15 and M16 of the Local Plan which, together, amongst other things, seek to ensure that all development is acceptable in terms of highway safety.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area because of its design; it would undermine the Council’s Spatial Strategy, perpetuating the reliance on the private motor car for much of the travel needs of future occupiers; the amount of amenity space for future residents would be inadequate; it would harmfully undermine the provision of protected open space in the Borough; there would be harm to biodiversity, including bats, a protected species; it would have an unacceptable effect on the safety of the travelling public. These are all matters weighing against the proposal.

However, the Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of homes. Other provisions of the Framework observe that small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement. The Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, in accordance with Government expectations. However, the provision of a five-year supply of suitable housing sites is not to be regarded as a maximum, but a minimum and Government is seeking to significantly increase the delivery of new homes. Nonetheless, the provision of an additional two homes would not meaningfully increase the supply beyond that which is already available and the benefits of their provision limited.

The proposal would result in short-term economic benefits through increased activity in the construction sector, and longer term benefits as the future occupiers would be likely to use local shops and facilities. However, given the scale of the development, such benefits would be limited.

The policies in the Framework seek to both deliver a sufficient supply of homes, protect the environment and achieve safe, well-designed places that promote wellbeing. The creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Similarly, the Government places great emphasis on the protection and enhancement of the environment and highway safety. The proposal would undermine those latter aims. The benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by the harms and so the proposal would be contrary to Policy S5 of the Local Plan.

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The Framework, at Paragraph 153 states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness and that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 153 further advises that ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I have found that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development and would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The benefits identified would be outweighed by the harm to the Green Belt and other harms that I have identified and I therefore find that the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development have not been demonstrated.

The appellant cites an example of a development at The Ship, Green Street, Green Road, Darenth, Kent DA2 8DP4, which he feels comparable to the proposal. However, he has provided very little detail. The Council have identified that, in that particular case, very special circumstances were identified which justified granting permission. That is not so in this case and thus the proposal would be materially different. I therefore give this matter very limited weight in my considerations.

The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the aims of the Framework and, thereby, Policies M12 of the Local Plan.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.