Appeal 6003967

The appeal is dismissed.

Both parties state that since the application was determined the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply.

The appellant has provided a [name] to overcome the 3rd and 4th reasons for refusal, which the Council accepted. On this basis, I have not considered that these matters are in dispute and therefore I will not consider them as main issues within this appeal.

The main issues are • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. • The effect of the use of the proposed access on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers using The Chase and [site address] ; as well as the impact of noise and disturbance on neighbouring properties from traffic movements.

The site is located on a private lane known as The Chase. However, it connects a footpath in the northwest corner of the lane to the footpaths along [site address] . The site has the appearance of an overgrown garden space and is an infill plot between two residential properties. There are already other dwellings that form back land development to [site address] in this specific location.

The proposed dwelling is a single storey property approximately 6.55 metres high and sits approximately 1 metre away from one side boundary and 4.8 metres away from the other. It is also noted that the proposed garage is set significantly back from the lane, which would help give the appearance of a more open form of development on this side. There is also space in front of the proposed dwelling for some planting.

It was noted that along The Chase there is a variety of properties, with many of these being two storey and having been built close to the boundary lines. There are both larger and smaller residential plots along The Chase, though it is noted that the residential plots along [site address] are significantly larger.

Whilst the proposed single storey dwelling would be situated near taller buildings, its subservient height would prevent harm to the overall character and appearance of the local area.

There is space at the front of the site and in the side and rear garden for additional planting, which would help mitigate against the loss of landscaping to accommodate the proposal. It would also be possible to condition the removal of permitted development rights to ensure that the space around the proposal would not be filled in by later extensions or hard landscaping. Therefore, the proposed dwelling would not look out of place among the other dwellings that define the character and appearance of the street scene of The Chase and would not have any material impact upon the street scene of [site address] .

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the local area. On this basis the proposal complies, in regard to this issue, with Policy SP7 of Colchester Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 Section 1 2021 (Local Plan Section 1) and Policy DM15 of Local Plan 2017-2033 Section 2 2022 (Local Plan Section 2) that in total seek that development is of a high quality design that responds positively to the local area.

The Chase is a single lane private road that connects to a footpath at one end and the public highway of [site address] at the other end. I did not notice any restrictions that would prevent visitors from parking along [site address] , though delivery vehicles are more likely to park in front of the proposed dwelling for a short period of time when dropping off goods. Several of the properties along The Chase had signs on the driveways to deter other vehicles manoeuvring on the driveway. In addition, the narrowness of the lane means it would be difficult for vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists to pass one another.

The proposed dwelling would have two parking spaces, with one of these being located within a garage along with an electric vehicle charging point. The appellant has also shown spaces within the proposed garden for bike and bin storage areas.

I have noted that The Chase is a very lightly trafficked lane, where vehicles are likely to be traveling at low speeds. However, it was apparent during my site visit that there was already an issue of vehicles not being able to turn and exit onto [site address] in a forward gear without seeking to use other people’s private land. The alternative would be to reverse onto [site address] , which I noted to be a heavily trafficked road, with limited visibility specifically southwards. The reversing onto [site address] would cause a significant and unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The increase in traffic related to the proposed dwelling is unlikely to have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring residential amenity. The increase of a single dwelling’s car movements and deliveries is very unlikely to cause detrimental harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupies from noise disturbance.

I have noted the comments of the Highway Authority. However, the continued increase of dwellings along this private lane continues to make it closer in movement levels to where it would be expected to meet adoptable standards. In that there should be safe places for pedestrians and cyclists to travel, as well as the ability for cars and delivery vehicles to pass and manoeuvre. The proposal does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the safety of highway users.

I therefore conclude on this issue that while the proposal would not cause detrimental noise disturbance it would be detrimental to highway safety. On this basis, the proposal does not comply with Policy DM21 in Local Plan Section 2 that seeks that priority should be given to people walking and cycling, minimise conflict between traffic and cyclists as well as pedestrians and that development should accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and services. This accords with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) Chapter 9 that requires safe and suitable access of all users, priority to pedestrians and cyclists with minimal conflict with vehicles and that there is the allowance for efficient delivery of goods.

As detailed above I do not conclude that there would be harm to nearby residents from noise and disturbance from vehicular movements from the proposed development. On this basis, there is no conflict in this regard with Policy SP7 of Local Plan Section 1 or Policy DM15 of Local Plan Section 2 that both seek to protect existing residents from noise and disturbance.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council accepts that they cannot demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land as required by Paragraph 78 of the Framework. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, which is a material consideration of significant weight, is engaged. It states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the Local Plan, as there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate there would not be significant risk to highway safety. For these reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

The proposal would have a limited impact upon the housing supply within the area. The benefit of the single dwelling in supporting both services and facilities within the settlement is limited. There are also likely limited economic benefits during the construction phase and limited longer term benefit of additional workforce in the local area.

The appellant has also raised that Council Tax would be a benefit to the proposal. However, the associated revenue would be minimal and this is to provide services and facilities to the future occupants of the dwelling. In addition, the environmental benefits of electric vehicle charging point and environmental betterment in the local area are standard requirements, so these are a neutral factor in making my

However, I have concluded that there would be significant harm to highway safety. The adverse impacts would, therefore, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.