Appeal 6003939

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on:  The integrity of the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation; and,  The effect on highway safety, with particular regard to on-street parking.

The appeal site is within the Zone of Influence (ZoI) of the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The SAC qualifying features are its beech forests, semi-natural dry grasslands and scrub, and its population of stag beetles. It is protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitats Regulations), and as such, it is incumbent upon me as the competent authority to consider the likely significant effects of the proposed development, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, on the integrity of the SAC.

It has been identified that the SAC is experiencing recreational pressure driven by increased visitors from the Borough and surrounding areas. Although the proposal would not result in the creation of a new dwelling or provide additional rooms, it would increase the number of occupiers in the property, which could add to the recreational pressures identified through more people living within the ZoI. Subsequently, alone and in combination with other developments in the area, likely significant effects on the SAC cannot be ruled out. The need for mitigation is therefore necessary and justified.

The Council’s mitigation strategy imposes a tariff on all development resulting in the net gain of residential development to provide financial contributions for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and [name] and Monitoring (SAMM). Subject to these contributions being secured, the likely significant effects would be mitigated. A legal agreement to secure these mitigation contributions would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations and paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Whilst the appellant has indicated a willingness to accept a legal mechanism to secure the mitigation contribution if found to be necessary, no completed legal agreement is before me. This cannot be dealt with by planning condition if the appeal was allowed, as a positively-worded condition cannot be imposed to require the payment of money1. The appellant has not shown that there are no alternative solutions. Imperative reasons of overriding public interest do not exist, and there are no other considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the SAC.

For the above reasons, applying the precautionary principle, I therefore cannot be certain that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. Accordingly, it would fail to adhere to the requirements of the Habitat Regulations and conflicts with Policy CS26 of the [name] 2006 – 2031 (the [name]), which amongst other things, states that development will contribute towards the conservation and restoration of habitats and species.

The appeal site includes a parking space at the front of the property. Although this space may be too short to accommodate some modern vehicles without encroaching onto the pavement, there is nothing substantive before me to demonstrate that this would occur with all vehicle types, and smaller cars could not be parked fully within the space. Any existing instances of the driveway being obstructed, or vehicles parking on the pavement, are matters for the Highway Authority and the Police and fall outside the scope of this appeal.

The proposal would increase the number of occupiers from six to nine, so the key consideration is whether the addition of three residents would materially increase parking demand. During my site visit, I noted that many properties along the road benefit from off-street parking. Although the frequent presence of dropped kerbs reduces the amount of on-street space available, I did not observe any road markings indicating parking restrictions. There were also sections of the road that provided unallocated on-street parking spaces not reserved for any particular property. I saw that the section of road surrounding the appeal site was not heavily parked, but the parking areas further down the road were full.

I recognise that my site visit was just a snapshot in time and the parking situation may change in more competitive evening and weekend times, particularly as interested parties have highlighted that the road experiences parking issues and has a lack of capacity to accommodate more vehicles. [name] understand these concerns, there is little evidence to demonstrate that these issues are a direct result of the appeal site. Some increased competition for on-street parking spaces could cause inconvenience and frustration. However, this cannot necessarily be equated to material harm of a magnitude that would warrant withholding permission. 1 PPG paragraph 21a-005-20190723

Although the reason for refusal refers to conflict with the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2020, there are no applicable standards for this type of development. The site is also close to a bus stop, with shops and services within walking distance. There are significant opportunities to use other modes of transport and reduce reliance on the private car. As no additional bedrooms are proposed, the extra occupiers would share existing rooms, and their relationship could enable shared trips and mutual visitors. Consequently, any additional on‐street parking demand generated by three extra future occupiers would be limited.

The Highway Authority have confirmed that they can identify no accidents locally, potentially attributable to parking that was prejudicial to highway safety, nor does it have any evidence that on-street parking is creating a severe impact. The evidence before me does therefore not indicate that any additional vehicles associated with the proposal parking on the street would cause harm, as claimed.

Drawing all of the above together, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety, due to on-street parking. Accordingly, it complies with Policies CS8 and CS12 of the [name]. These policies, amongst other things, require development to provide sufficient parking. It would also not conflict with paragraph 116 of the Framework, which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

[name] have found that the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety, it cannot be ascertained that it would not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. The development therefore conflicts with the development plan as a whole. I apportion significant weight to this conflict and the associated harm.

Although the Council raised no objection on design, visual amenity, residential amenity or the internal living environment for future occupiers' grounds, compliance with relevant national and local planning policies on these matters would be required in any case. These are therefore neutral matters and neither weigh in favour nor against the appeal scheme.

The proposal would provide residential accommodation for three people, making use of the existing housing stock in an accessible location. However, given the scale of the development, the extent of these benefits would be limited and would not outweigh the harm I have identified or the conflict with the development 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. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.