Appeal 6004736

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by [address] of [name] against Medway Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision.

The second reason for refusal stated that it had not been demonstrated that the development would not increase flood risk. However the Council have confirmed that information provided at the appeal addresses their concerns subject to the imposition of conditions. Likewise, the fifth reason for refusal related to the lack of an Ecological Impact Assessment. One has now been provided and the Council confirm that they now have no objection to the development on these grounds, subject to the imposition of conditions, though they still have concerns on other biodiversity grounds. The Council also confirm acceptable data on traffic generation has been provided, though they remain to have concerns with regard to effective operation of the highway within the development.

Two of the reasons for refusal related to the lack of a planning obligation to secure contributions to education, health care, children’s services, sport, public open space, sustainable transport, public realm, public rights of way, the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area, and the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area. It is also understood that to provide [name], off-site provision would be necessary which could also be secured by a planning obligation. The appellant has provided a draft bilateral s106 agreement and a unilateral undertaking to address these matters. I return to these later.

In light of the above, the remaining main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and ii) whether the development would ensure highway safety.

The appeal site is a large plot containing a two-storey detached dwelling, some ancillary outbuildings and a single storey detached annexe. There is an extensive garden with some areas of mature tree planting, and it is accessed by a private driveway at the end of [address].

The site is bounded to its north, west and east by residential development, and to the south by the vegetated verge of the A2. Generally, the houses to the west on Pump Lane are detached, to the east on [address] are semi-detached and to the north on [address] are terraced. Due to the trees and bushes along the A2, as well as those within the appeal site, these three forms of housing are not readily seen together. Nonetheless, there is a strong degree of consistency individually on [address] and on [address] which are positive characteristics of the area. In particular, the uniformity of the [address] street scene with the houses all being semi-detached, two storey and with hipped roofs provides a degree of distinctiveness. Though they are separated from the A2 by some roadside trees and a hedge, they are still a key feature of the street scene of this busy road.

The proposal would include a row of three pairs of semi-detached houses at the front of the site. These would broadly continue the pattern of houses fronting the road in [address]. However, they would be substantially taller and bulkier at roof level than these neighbouring properties. They would also be slightly further forward. Their eaves level would be broadly the same as the neighbouring houses, rising slightly to reflect the topography. But it is the greater ridge height and, in most cases, the barn hip roof design, that would mean the proposed houses would appear larger and bulkier than the nearby dwellings, and hence incongruous in their setting. The provision of front dormers in some of the houses would add to this effect, being a visual manifestation of a third storey, which the neighbouring houses in [address] do not possess. The vegetation along the site frontage, as well as the mature trees on the highway verge, would provide a degree of visual softening. However, the existing dwelling on the site is visible above the hedging and in between the trees, and so the proposal, by being taller, closer to the road and of a greater number of units than the existing dwelling, would be clearly visible. The contrast between the scale of the proposed houses and those alongside in [address] would be stark and jarring.

It is also likely that the rear of the houses to be provided along the western side of the site would also be visible from positions to the west along the A2 above the boundary hedging and trees in the rear gardens of the houses on Pump Lane. Again, from here, the large scale of the proposed houses and their roofs, would contrast with the smaller scale of the houses on Pump Lane.

There are tall houses on the south side of the A2, partly because of their design and partly because of topography. In addition they have barn hip style roofs. Nonetheless, the proposed development would primarily be seen in the context of the houses that adjoin the site, rather than those on the opposite side of the A2, which constitutes a wide and significant separating feature.

With respect to the layout of the scheme, and in particular the street scene within the development, there would be very little in the way of front gardens with the space instead being primarily used for parking with minimal room for substantive landscaping. Although there are some properties nearby, particularly on [address], which also have little more than hardstanding to their fronts, most properties nearby, including those more closely related to the site on [address], do have grassed front gardens. Hence, in this respect also, the contrast between the development and the dwellings in [address] would be harsh. In addition, the provision of the play area, almost wholly surrounded by the vehicle manoeuvring space, would render it a rather isolated feature providing little relief to the expanse of hardstanding that surrounds it.

Overall, the proposal would contrast markedly with, and so substantially harm, the character and appearance of the area. It therefore would conflict with policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) (MLP) which aims to ensure that development relates to the character of the environment in terms of its scale, mass and layout, and MLP policy H4 which supports the redevelopment of residential areas but only if a clear improvement in the local environment will result. There would also be conflict with MLP policy BNE6 which seeks that development provides structured landscaping to enhance the character of the locality. [name] have no evidence to suggest the size of the play area would be insufficient such that it would not meet the standards set out in MLP policy L4.

The proposed site plan shows that there would be no pavements within the development with parking abutting the back edge of the vehicular highway. The appellant has suggested the area could be a shared surface. This would necessitate the development having speed restrictions, tactile features and would need to ensure that persons with restricted mobility could use it safely. Given the relatively small quantum of development and the limited number of traffic movements it would most likely generate, I see no reason why the principle of a shared surface could not be safe and hence such further details could be secured by a condition.

The Council also raise concern that the waste vehicle and fire tender tracking diagrams show conflict with the parking spaces proposed for units 11 and 13. However from my reading of the plans, it seems these vehicles would be able to turn without encroaching into the parking spaces for either of these two houses. Even if the tracking does show a negligible encroachment into the parking spaces, such as possibly for unit 13, it seems likely that there is some scope for the tracking to be slightly altered so that it did not show encroachment into the parking spaces for this unit, and without encroaching into any other area. The Council also suggest delivery vehicles have not been tracked, but provide no detail of the size of vehicle they would anticipate being used. I would expect that most deliveries would not be made by vehicles any larger than the fire tender and waste collection vehicles already accounted for.

As such, on these matters, the development would accord with MLP policies T1 and T2 which together seek to ensure that development does not significantly add to the risk of road traffic accidents and that access would not be detrimental to the safety of all highway users.

The Council accept that they do not have a five year supply of housing land. The appellant gives two possible figures in their planning statement, but both are around 3 years supply. Such a shortfall is significant, and this carries substantial weight in favour of the development.

The lack of a sufficient supply of housing means that paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) is engaged. Paragraph 11d) ii. states that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Particular regard should be had to policies relating to development in sustainable locations, making effective use of land, design and the provision of affordable homes.

The Council consider the site is in a reasonably sustainable location, and they advise it is not necessary for the scheme to provide affordable homes. Moreover, it has not been suggested that the development makes an inefficient use of land.

However with regard to design, paragraph 135 of the Framework advises that development should be sympathetic to local character and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and landscaping. This is also echoed in paragraph 129 which refers to density, advising that development should maintain an area’s prevailing character and setting. For the reasons given above, the proposal would not reflect the local character, particularly with respect to the scale, mass and height of the dwellings; and the layout, with extensive hardstanding and limited landscaping in the street scene, would not be attractive. The conflict with these paragraphs carries considerable weight.

In respect of other policies of the Framework, the development would be supported by paragraph 61, which seeks to boost housing supply, and at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing, this carries substantial weight. There would also be some economic benefit as supported by paragraph 8 of the Framework. This is a modest benefit given the moderate scale of the proposal.

Nonetheless, overall, it is considered the adverse effects resulting from the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development when considered against the policies of the Framework as a whole.

All of the contributions requested by the Council would be to mitigate and neutralise the impacts resulting from the development. They would not count positively in its favour so could not affect the planning balance. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I therefore need not consider these contributions any further, though I note there is dispute between the parties as to the need for some of them.

In any case, neither the bilateral agreement, nor the unilateral undertaking, are signed or dated so are both incomplete. As such, they could have no effect and so there is no valid mechanism before me to secure any of the purported contributions. Likewise, although the provision of off-site [name] would be a benefit, there is no completed mechanism to secure it.

Although the development would provide a safe highway environment within the site, it would substantially harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations including the provisions of the Framework that lead me to a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.