Appeal 6004271

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Drawings have been submitted showing possible site layouts and building designs, these have been considered as indicative only.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location and the amount of development.

The appeal site comprises a portion of a wider field including several dilapidated outbuildings, enclosed by a mixture of fencing and mature planting in a backland position. The northern portion of the site lies within the development envelope of Fordham, with the southern portion considered open countryside. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

The surrounding area is mixed with a variety of house types, densities and plot sizes. There is a road fronting row of terraces to the north with long narrow gardens and two substantial detached houses in backland positions to the east. There are open fields to the south and west, however the field to the west has been allocated for housing. The appeal site appears as an integral part of Fordham, distinct from the surrounding countryside, which would be further reinforced if the adjacent housing allocation was built out.

The indicative site plan shows the proposed dwelling, including parking and turning within the development envelope of Fordham to the north of the site, with the garden located to the south. Whilst the Council asserts that the layout would be cramped and contrived, appearing as an overdevelopment, it is indicative only. Moreover, the parties agree that the appeal site exceeds the minimum size required by the [name] Planning Document (March 2012) for a single dwelling.

Given the overall size of the site and variety of surrounding development, I am satisfied that an appropriate amended layout and design, that would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, could be agreed at the technical details consent stage.

The proposal would be accessed via the existing shared drive, which currently serves the appeal site and several other properties. It passes between Nos 46 and [address] and is bound by a mixture of mature hedging and high-level fencing along much of its length, before turning sharply to the west, parallel with the rear gardens of the road fronting properties.

The appellant asserts that the proposal would marginally increase the daily number of two-way vehicle trips along the access, with a low probability of vehicle conflicts. Moreover, it is suggested that the existing access is sufficient for two vehicles to pass without clashes as per guidance within the Manual for Streets. However, the swept path analysis has been completed using [name] data, which when considering the relative scale of the access cannot be considered to be entirely accurate, or reflective of the space available on site for manoeuvring. Further, I have no substantiated evidence before me that trips made by larger vehicles, such as delivery vans, or the corresponding tracking has been considered.

I acknowledge that the Local Highways Authority did not explicitly raise highway safety concern. However, at my site visit, I noted the limited width of the access along its entire length, made more apparent by the tyre tracks indicating that only one car typically uses the access at a time. The appellant acknowledges that the existing hedge is outside of their control and as such its growth/maintenance would vary the width of the access at different times of the year. Moreover, due to the sharp turn in the track and tall boundary treatments, intervisibility between vehicles would be somewhat limited.

Whilst the proposal would only result in a small uplift in personal vehicle trips with a relatively low probability of vehicle conflicts, if conflicts were to occur, I am not satisfied that there would be sufficient space for vehicles to safely pass one another, particularly where larger vehicles were involved, even when travelling at low speeds. Although there would be sufficient forward visibility on the junction with [address], it is likely that vehicles would have to wait on or reverse back onto the road, increasing the likelihood of conflicts with both vehicles and pedestrians, to the detriment of highway safety.

Overall, I conclude that the amount of development proposed would be acceptable with regard to its effect on the character and appearance of the area, however, the site would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location. It would conflict with Policy COM7 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (April 2015, [name] 2023) (CLP) where it requires development to provide safe and convenient access to the highway network.

For the avoidance of doubt, the proposal would accord with CLP Policy ENV2 where it requires development to make efficient use of land while respecting the density, urban and village character and landscape of the area and ensure scale and massing relates sympathetically to the area.

The development would make an efficient use of land to provide a dwelling. As a small site, it could also be built-out reasonably quickly. The development would therefore make a small but beneficial contribution to the choice of homes in the area and the supply of housing land; as well as providing social and economic benefits during construction and after occupation.

Housing delivery is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). However, given the scale of the development, any social, economic or environmental benefits associated with the delivery of one dwelling would be relatively limited, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework, and would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

Concerns have been raised regarding the living conditions of surrounding residents, maintenance and development access, flooding and drainage, the loss of trees and light and the effect of the proposal on wildlife. These are all matters which would be addressed as part of the second stage of the permission in principle process, technical details consent and are not considerations to be dealt with at this stage.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the Framework and the benefits of the proposal, which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.