Appeal 6004742

The appeal is dismissed,

Amended plans were submitted with the appeal in order to overcome the Council’s reasons for refusal. Revisions include architectural details as well as alterations to roofs and lowering of ridge heights. The Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve proposals and what is considered at appeal should be essentially what was considered by the Council. Nevertheless, the revisions are relatively minor. Moreover, the Council and interested parties have been provided with the opportunity to comment on the amended plans through the appeal process. As such, I am satisfied that their interests would not be prejudiced by my acceptance of the revised plans.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) The character and appearance of the area; ii) The residential amenity of the occupiers of: a. 19 and [address] and 26 and [address], with particular regard to overbearing and overshadowing; and b. [address], with particular regard to noise and disturbance; iii) Operational carbon emissions; iv) Surface water flood risk; and v) Biodiversity, including biodiversity net gain and protected species.

No 22 is a sprawling single storey detached dwelling on the corner of [address] and [address]. It is deeply set back from the road in a large roughly L-shaped plot enclosed by properties on [address], [address] and [address]. The plot formerly comprised a mature garden with lawn, pond, shrubs and trees, but the pond has been filled in and shrubs and trees cleared. It is in a residential area characterised by semi-detached and detached properties in a range of styles and sizes, resulting in a mixed character and appearance.

The proposed development would comprise 4 pairs of semi-detached dwellings. Plots 1-4 would occupy the corner and have road frontages. Plots 5-8 would be backland development accessed via a long internal road from [address]. The dwellings were each originally proposed with accommodation over 3 storeys, but the amended plans illustrate that plots 5 and 6 would now be 2 storey dwellings. The dwellings would be finished in brick with slate roof tiles, brick plinths and mock sliding sash windows with stone headers and cills.

The housing density and garden to plots ratios would be in keeping with the surrounding area. Nevertheless, the shape of the appeal site results in an awkward layout and arrangement of properties. Plots 5-6 would be directly behind Plots 3-4, with front elevations facing towards the rear of those properties and overlooking carparking and manoeuvring hardstanding. Plots 7-8 would be further tucked away between the rear gardens of [address] and [address] properties, with front elevations looking over hardstanding and carparking towards the side elevation of Plot 6. Consequently, the backland properties would be poorly related to one another and to the surrounding townscape.

Plots 1-4 would be sited on a bend in [address], and therefore prominent in the street scene and townscape. These pairs of properties would have a larger footprint and greater depth than neighbouring semi-detached and detached properties. While they might be similar in height to existing No 20, they would be markedly taller and bulkier than Nos 19-24. Plots 1-4 would also be set apart from the neighbours by their disproportionately tall roofs, tall elevations with second floor windows and vertical emphasis. They would contrast unfavourably with the proportions of neighbouring properties, including those where traditional 2 storey roof spaces have been converted with or without dormer roof extensions.

Plots 3-4 would be similar to the existing No 20 in terms of the central front gable with decorative detail and front entrances to either side, although it would be top heavy by virtue of its disproportionately deep roof. Plots 1-2 would however be poorly related to its neighbours. The entrances to these would be on different elevations as would the parking, resulting in the appearance of 2 principal elevations. Viewed from the west or north, this pair of semi-detached properties would have the appearance of a substantial single dwelling with an unbalanced and complicated composition comprising stepped elevations, eaves and ridge heights, and with various half hips, 3 storey gable features and dormer roof extensions. The north elevation would appear out of scale and out of keeping with the neighbouring row of semi-detached properties with their simple and substantially matching facades and roofs. To the west elevation, the pair of narrow 3 storey gables would relate poorly to the neighbouring properties.

Pairs of semi-detached properties elsewhere in the street generally appear to be separated by at least the width of a driveway. However, Plots 1-2 would be only narrowly separated from Plots 3-4. Taking into account their depth, this close spacing would not provide a distinct visual gap between the pairs of properties. In oblique views, the proposal would have a terracing effect that would be visually dominant and out of keeping with the rhythm of the street.

The siting and set back from the road of Plots 5-8 would serve to screen them from wider public views, although Plots 5-6 would likely be visible in the gap between Plot 1 and [address]. However, the close spacing to side boundaries would render Plots 5-8 conspicuous from neighbouring properties. Plots 7-8 would be an imposing tall building with a bulky roof but it would be a symmetrical pair of properties. Plots 5-6 would be oddly unbalanced with misaligned windows, eaves and roofs. The complexity of its asymmetric roof, with disproportionate and disjointed height and size, would be visually obtrusive and discordant in the context of the otherwise somewhat unremarkable surrounding townscape roofscape.

The internal access road would extend from [address] to the rear boundaries of [address] properties. In addition to serving Plots 5-8, it would serve the parking spaces for Plot 4 which would be to the rear of Plots 3-4. The plans illustrate that, once parked, the occupiers of Plot 4 would access their dwelling via the rear garden and the rear elevation folding doors or by walking the internal road back to [address] to access it via the main entrance in the front elevation.

The internal road would be a long, straight feature enclosed by tall close-boarded fences and the side elevations of the existing No 20 and proposed Plot 4. The planting and landscape plans indicate ornamental shrub planting to either side of the internal access. However, the majority of the planting would be low growing species with a maximum height and spread of only around 40cm, in containers and very narrow planting zones. Even if it could be maintained for the lifetime of the proposal, the low planting would not soften or screen the unwelcoming extent of 1.8m high fences or the looming expanse of the side elevation of Plot 4.

I observed that the highway access arrangements into [address] and [address] run between the side boundaries of street facing properties. [address] access has a distinct identity with brick walls and gated entrance. [address] properties to either side of that entrance have relatively short gardens so that the internal road quickly opens up and the [address] properties face onto it and each other. Moreover, the [address] road terminates with properties that face towards [address] resulting in a sense of community and place that would not be achieved by the close-boarded fence at the end of the proposed access. [address] is a coherent development with dwellings arranged around an internal road and facing one another. [address] access is relatively wide with footways to either side and it affords welcoming views of the front elevations of facing dwellings. Well-designed cul-de-sac developments elsewhere are not directly comparable and do not provide a justification for the appeal.

Drawing all this together, the proposal would not be sympathetic to the surrounding built environment. Irrespective that the townscape might not be architecturally significant, the proposal would not contribute positively to a strong sense of place or local distinctiveness. The acceptability of some elements, including densities, materials and architectural details, would not mitigate the adverse visual effect arising from the awkward siting and layout, the unwelcoming and inactive internal access, or the discordant and unbalanced facades, roofscapes and proportions.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with the design and place making aims of policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 2022 to 2039 [name] 2025 (the PfE), policy L2 of the Trafford Local Plan: [name] 2012 (the CS) and Trafford Local Plan: Supplementary Planning Document 7 (SPD7) – [name] 2024. It would also conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in relation to the creation of high quality and beautiful buildings and places that function well and add to the overall quality of the area. Residential amenity 19 and [address], 26 and [address]

Submitted plans indicate that the side elevation of Plot 5 would be over 15m from the 2 storey rear elevations of Nos 26 and 28. However, both these properties have single storey rear extensions which reduces the separation distance to less than 15m in both cases. This is below the minimum separation distance between blank gables and habitable room windows considered necessary by SPD7 policy HPL6 to prevent unacceptable overbearing impacts.

The design of Plots 5-6 has been amended to reduce the height and bulk of the roof. The full hipped roof to Plot 5 means that the roof would slope away from the neighbours. Even so, Plot 5 would have a long 2-storey side elevation and a tall roof and it would be only around 2m from the shared boundary. Notwithstanding it would straddle the boundary between Nos 26 and 28, it would extend along much of both neighbouring rear boundaries. Taking into account its size, scale and siting, the expansive side elevation and roof of Plot 5 would dominate views from the neighbours’ rear habitable room windows and garden and it would be overbearing to the rears of those properties. The adverse effect would not be mitigated by the outbuilding in the rear garden of No 26.

More than 50%, or at least 0.8 if the existing area, of the neighbouring gardens would receive 2 hours of direct sunlight on 21 March. Nevertheless, during the middle of the day in the over winter period, the proposal would result in greater overshadowing of at least the rear garden of No 28. I accept that this alone would not be a significant adverse impact on the neighbours. However, at a time of year when natural light and daylight is in shorter supply, the existing neighbours would be likely to perceive this loss of light as detrimental to their living conditions.

The side elevation of Plot 8 would be around 2m from the shared boundaries with Nos 19 and 20, which are modestly scaled 2-storey semi-detached properties. The design of Plots 7-8 has been amended to reduce the overall height of the roof and the scale of the roof has been reduced by half hips to side elevations and hipped dormers. Nevertheless, the plans illustrate Plots 7-8 as a tall, wide and significantly bulky building close to and along the neighbours’ rear garden boundaries.

Plot 8 would be a little over 18m and 19m to the 2-storey rear elevations of No 19 and 20 respectively. However, both neighbouring properties have rear extensions, which reduces the distances by several metres and, in the case of No 19, to below 15m. While the distance to the rear of No 20 would be a little over 15m, Plot 8 would extend along nearly the entire width of its rear boundary. As a result, Plot 8 would be an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development to the residential occupiers of No 20 in their dwelling and garden. No 19 has a wide rear boundary, meaning that the side elevation of Plot 8 would extend along roughly only half of the rear garden boundary. However, taking into account the orientation of No 19 and its separation distance to the overly large side elevation of Plot 8, the proposal would be overbearing and visually intrusive to the occupiers of No 19.

Plot 8 would be to the west of Nos 19 and 20 and, by virtue of its siting and scale, it would result in overshadowing of both the neighbours’ rear gardens and rear windows at various times of the year. While there would be no discernible change in the over winter situation, the overshadowing drawings illustrate likely adverse effects on the neighbours later in the day during spring and summer as the sun sinks in the sky to the west. This overshadowing would contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.

My attention has been drawn to residential development elsewhere. In the case of [address] (ref 116801/FUL/25), No 156 appears to be a substantial detached property set in a large plot. The new dwelling to the rear does appear to be relatively close to a part of the rear boundary, but it is offset, widely separated and screened by trees such that direct unobstructed views would not be afforded from the rear of No 156 nor its large garden. [address] (ref 117039/FUL/25), I understand that the Council accepted lesser separation distances and for some windows poorer outlooks than are proposed here. However, that development comprises 53 terraced dwellings, which are generally more closely spaced and a more densely developed urban form of development than the semi-detached and detached properties that characterise this area. Neither of these schemes is directly comparable and they do not provide a justification for the appeal proposal.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the residential occupiers of [address] and [address], with particular regard to overbearing and overshadowing. This would conflict with the residential amenity aims of CS policy L7 and PfE policy JP-P1. It would also fail to create a place with a high standard of amenity for the purposes of the Framework. [address]

The proposed highway access would be roughly in the location of the existing access to No 22, which is adjacent to the side of No 20. As existing, the driveway to No 22 terminates at a garage behind the rear building line of No 20. As proposed, the internal road would run along the entire length of the side boundary of No 20 and terminate near the rear garden boundary of [address].

The new access road would serve Plots 5-8 and the parking to the rear of Plots 3-4. As each property would have 2 parking spaces, the access road would be used by up to 10 residents’ vehicles. It would also be used by vehicles of domestic and commercial visitors, including delivery drivers, to Plots 5-8. Additionally, there would be pedestrian movements to and from Plots 5-8 and around Plot 4.

The proposal would not introduce any novel sources of noise such as are not already commonly encountered in the wider residential area. However, where rear gardens are back to back, as here, these are often quieter spaces shielded from highway traffic and the comings and goings of large numbers of people. Indeed, taking into account the depth of the rear gardens and that No 20 is currently bordered to the side and rear by the extensive garden of the appeal property, the neighbours will be likely to enjoy the rear of their property and their private outdoor space relatively free from noise and disturbance.

In contrast to this existing situation, there would be a considerable increase in activity by people and vehicles along the side boundary of No 20. The neighbours in No 20 would be subjected to increased noise and disturbance including the sound of vehicular manoeuvring, idling and revving engines and audio equipment, slamming of car doors, headlights, and more generally from the comings and goings of a larger number of residents and visitors. This would spoil the neighbours’ quiet enjoyment of the rear of their property and private outdoor space.

A technical note submitted with the appeal reports that the additional vehicle movements would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in noise levels. This is based on the transport statement predicted traffic movements and the provision of a 1.[address]-boarded acoustic barrier between No [address]. In this regard, the amended boundary treatment details plan illustrates a 1.8m [name] timber acoustic fence along the neighbours’ side boundary.

It is not clear what the predicted noise levels would be in the absence of the fence or for example if the neighbours were unable to maintain it or repair it in the event of damage. However, the modelled sound levels suggest that, in the absence of mitigation, sound levels at the closest windows in No 20 and its rear garden would be considerably higher than the existing quiet situation. I accept that the predicted traffic noise would comply with British standards and World Health Organisation guidance. However, it is not clear that the noise assessment takes into account the particular characteristics of the noise and disturbance including car doors, revving engines, in vehicle audio equipment, not to mention pedestrians.

Moreover, even if the assessment took account of all types of noise, the effectiveness of the acoustic fence would depend in part on it being properly installed and then maintained to a high standard, free of gaps and defects, for the lifetime of the development. In this regard, the fence would be installed in the first instance by the appellant and would likely come with some form of guarantee. However, the onus would be on the neighbours to maintain it in the interests of achieving a satisfactory standard of residential amenity.

Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that the assessment of potential noise and disturbance is sufficiently robust to evidence the absence of adverse impacts for the lifetime of the development on the neighbours in No 20, who currently enjoy the rear of their property and private outdoor space free from significant noise and disturbance. I note the suggestion that the occupiers of No 22 could exercise their permitted development rights to build a swimming pool or outbuilding, or otherwise erect a trampoline, adjacent to No 20. However, there is little evidence that any of these would be a valid fallback position if the appeal should fail or that they would in any case result in comparable noise and disturbance to the proposal. I have already discussed the ways in which cul-de-sac developments elsewhere differ from this proposal. Even if they had resulted in harm to residential neighbours, that would not provide a justification for the harm in this case.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the residential occupiers of No 20, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. This would conflict with the residential amenity aims of CS policy L7 and PfE policy JP-P1. It would also conflict with the aims of the Framework in relation to high standards of amenity.

Policy JP-S2 of the PfE aims to deliver a carbon neutral [name] no later than 2038 with dramatic reductions in green house gas emissions. In order to achieve this, new development is expected, unless demonstrably not viable, to be net zero carbon in terms of regulated operational carbon emissions and from 2025 it should also minimise unregulated carbon emissions.

A brief energy statement was included in the Design and Access statement submitted with the planning application. However, this simply set out that carbon emissions would be calculated and minimised and stated that in the event residual carbon emissions could not be fully mitigated on site opportunities would be sought towards carbon offsetting.

An updated energy and carbon statement ([name], January 2026) has been provided. This assumes all dwellings will include decentralised mechanical extract ventilation, openable windows, air source heat pumps and solar photovoltaic panels. It concludes that Plots 5 and 6 would exceed the individual energy use intensity requirements but, if the scheme is considered as a whole, the average values across all dwellings would be below the threshold. With reference to renewable energy generation, there is uncertainty as to whether the required levels of generation could be achieved. Endeavours would be made to select materials with lower embodied carbon, to implement a local procurement policy and to use electric plant and tools rather than diesel during construction. Measures would also be implemented to reduce embodied carbon in construction waste.

Notwithstanding that the appellant has averaged the energy use across all dwellings, the target values in PfE policy JP-S2 reflect wider guidance and apply to individual buildings not residential development as a whole. Consequently, the proposal would not demonstrably achieve the Council’s energy sustainably standards for all new dwellings.

I note the suggestion that the significant costs associated with delivering biodiversity net gain effectively mean that the scheme would not be financially viable if each plot was required to achieve the specified target values. However, no detailed financial viability appraisal has been provided in this regard. Moreover, the fact that it would be expensive to achieve the statutory biodiversity gain requirements does not provide a justification for a scheme that would fail to accord with the development plan policies.

While the appellant considers that the Council’s net zero expectations are disproportionate and unrealistic for small-scale developments, the local policy requirements appear consistent with national policy. In this regard, the Framework directs the planning system to support the transition to net zero by 2050, helping to shape places that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, encourage the reuse of existing resources, and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.

With reference to solar roof panels, I appreciate that complex roof forms will restrict the number of panels that can be accommodated. Moreover, in areas where complex roofs are prevalent, there could be tension between the net zero polices and the need to respond positively to local distinctiveness. However, roof dormers are not a defining feature in the [address] street scene. Their inclusion in rear roof slopes appears to be designed to provide second floor living accommodation rather than to respond to local character.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would fail to achieve the Council’s energy sustainability requirements for all new houses and it has not been robustly demonstrated that it would not be feasible or financially viable to achieve the required standards. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the sustainability aims of PfE policies JP-S1 and JP-S2 and CS policy L5.

The appeal site is in an area at risk of surface water flooding and the proposal could increase the risk of flooding both on and off site. These risks are considered in the [name] and [name] (ref ADC3987-RP-A). This sets out measures to manage surface water runoff and mitigate the risk of flooding by way of an attenuation tank, restriction of offsite flow to 1.5l/s before discharge into the public sewer network in [address], and an exceedance plan including finished levels and sustainable drainage features.

[name] advise that these latest drainage proposals are not acceptable, on grounds that the drainage hierarchy has not been thoroughly investigated and the proposal fail to comply with the National Standards for [name] (2025). It recommends this matter be addressed by the imposition of a planning condition requiring details of sustainable surface and foul water drainage schemes, including an investigation of drainage hierarchy options.

Conversely, the Lead Local Flood Authority raises no such concerns and advises that surface water runoff and surface water flood risk can be satisfactorily addressed by the imposition of a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the [name] and [name]. However, it raises concerns around the culverted watercourse in the appeal site, the location of which has not been established, including that it could be inadvertently damaged during construction or rendered inaccessible for future maintenance. Accordingly, it recommends a pre-commencement condition requiring that its alignment and level be confirmed and any diversion should be agreed in principle.

In its evidence, and pursuant to [name] concerns, the Council agrees with the Lead Local Flood Authority and notes that the drainage hierarchy is in fact satisfied, with discharge to the public highway sewer the only feasible option. Notwithstanding concerns of third parties, based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable risk of surface water flooding. It would accord with PfE policy JP-S4 and CS policy L5. It would also accord with the flood risk aims of the Framework. Biodiversity

The statutory framework for BNG requires, subject to exceptions that do not apply in this case, that every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition (the biodiversity gain condition) that the biodiversity gain objective is met. The objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. This increase can be achieved both onsite and offsite.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ([name], 2025) (PEA) records the appeal site for the purposes of the BNG assessment as vegetated garden, developed land and individual trees. It also assesses its suitability to support protected and priority species. While this may be an accurate reflection of the condition of the site at that time, the garden was largely cleared in 2023 including that the garden pond was infilled and mature trees were felled.

Accordingly, there are questions over whether the assessment is reliable to inform the need for BNG, with particular reference to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in relation to degradation of onsite biodiversity value. In this regard, I note the neighbour representations, aerial photographs and the [name] consultee comments. At the time of my visit I also saw numerous stumps of mature trees and other evidence of felling, at least some of which did not appear to be recorded by surveys.

The updated BNG assessment includes the pond and it does account for at least some felled trees. Nevertheless, the supporting evidence in relation to the pre-development biodiversity value, including size, condition and species of trees and shrubs, is sketchy. As such, a degree of uncertainty remains as to whether or not the assessment of baseline biodiversity value is robust.

Notwithstanding, the PPG explains that the determination of the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) under the biodiversity gain condition is the mechanism to confirm whether the development meets the biodiversity gain objective. The PPG states, given this, it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers when determining a planning application for development subject to BNG to refuse the application on grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met.

Regardless of the disagreement between the parties, there is no dispute that compensation for the loss of onsite biodiversity value could not be achieved on site. Correspondence from the [name] indicates that the necessary habitat units could be purchased from the [name] in order to achieve offsite compensation. This is in a neighbouring administrative area, which increases the number of units required and hence the associated costs. If the pre-development biodiversity value was later proved to be incorrect and additional credits were required, then costs would increase. Irrespective, the statutory BNG framework requires the biodiversity gain objective to be met.

In determining planning applications, decision makers may need to consider whether the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged. However, the PPG explains that the pre-development biodiversity value is established through the approved BGP and the planning authority must only approve the BGP is it is satisfied that, among other things, the pre-development value of onsite habitats is as specified in the plan and the BNG objective is met.

There is little evidence that inaccuracies in the baseline assessment would result in a significantly different pre-development onsite biodiversity value. The appellant is not relying upon post-development onsite habitats to achieve 10% BNG. Additional offsite habitat units could be purchased if necessary to achieve satisfactory offsite compensation for losses. The BGP is the mechanism by which to robustly evidence the pre-development biodiversity value and how the biodiversity gain objective would be met.

Therefore, while the baseline biodiversity value does not appear to be adequately evidenced in order to accurately to inform the need for offsite compensation, I am nevertheless satisfied that the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being discharged in this case.

The clearance of the garden in advance of surveys being carried out means that it is not possible to establish the presence or absence of protected and priority species, including breeding birds, amphibians and bats, or the extent to which they may have been affected by the clearance of habitats. Nevertheless, precautionary mitigation measures would need to be implemented during construction for the reasonable avoidance of adverse impacts on wildlife including nesting birds, ground dwelling mammals and amphibians. This could be secured by the imposition of planning conditions. Appropriate working methods to prevent the spread of invasive species could similarly be secured by planning condition.

However, while an unknown number of mature trees have been felled, there are remaining trees in and around the appeal site. If any of these are suitable to support roosting bats and would be affected by the proposal, including by tree works or artificial lighting, then the proposal could result in adverse impacts on bats and their habitat.

The Preliminary Roost Assessment ([name], 2025) comprised a building inspection and an assessment of the suitability of local habitats to be used by bats. However, it records only that buildings are unsuitable to be used by bats and makes no specific mention of trees. The PEA considers potential impacts to ecological receptors but, while it states that trees were assessed for potential roosting features, trees are not described and it simply refers to the earlier [name] survey. As such, the submitted information does not demonstrate that adverse impacts on bats or bat roosts would be avoided, adequately mitigated or failing that compensated.

Therefore, I conclude that although the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being discharged, the proposal fails to demonstrate that harm to protected species would be avoided. Accordingly, it would conflict with the biodiversity protection and enhancement aims of PfE policy JP-P8 and CS policy R2 and the relevant aims of the Framework.

I note concerns about the Council’s processing of the application, which the appellant considers to be essentially a small-scale housing development, not highly complex nor subject to any sensitive or technical planning constraints. They refer to an absence of communication or positive engagement on the part of the Council and state that the Council would not accept design changes nor agree an extension of time. However, the Council determined the application based on the planning submission and in accordance with the statutory time limits. Even if it had behaved unreasonably in this regard, that would not weigh in favour of the appeal.

The parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites (5YHLS) but disagree over the extent of the shortfall. The Council’s figure of 4.7 years was accepted in an appeal1 in September 2025. However, the appellant argues that this has not been formally tested; the most recent published position was a 3.75 year supply in April 2022; and the Local Housing Needs Assessment (Marrons, April 2025) suggests that the figure could be lower based on the assumptions in that report and the new minimum standard method. The appellant also refers to a chronic under delivery of housing since 2021, although I note that the [name]: 2023 measurement (HDT) stood at 78% for the purposes of footnote 8 of the Framework.

It might be the case that the quoted 4.7 year supply was accepted in the 2025 appeal because it was not disputed by that appellant rather than because it was robustly evidenced. However, the most recent published position is several years old, as is the most recent HDT measurement. Moreover, while the Council’s position may not have been formally tested, I am not aware that the Marrons figure has either. Nevertheless, in the absence of agreement or recent published position paper, I accept that the supply position may be somewhere between the parties’ respective figures. On this basis, the shortfall may be moderate to significant.

Paragraph 11d) of the Framework sets out that where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, including where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS, planning permission should be granted unless either 11d)i. or ii. apply. In this case, there are no policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance that provide a strong reason for refusal. It therefore falls to consider whether any adverse effects of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, neighbouring residential amenity and biodiversity. It would also fail to meet the Council’s sustainability standards. In these regards, the Framework promotes the creation of well-designed places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. It directs the planning system to support the transition to net zero and to help shape places that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It also states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment including by minimising impacts on biodiversity and incorporating features which support priority and threatened species such as bats and hedgehogs. Taking into account the degree of consistency between the most important policies and the policies in the Framework, significant weight can be attached to the enduring harms that I have found and the consequent conflict with

With reference to the particular policies listed under Framework paragraph 11d)ii., the location is suitable for residential development in accordance with paragraphs 110 and 115. The proposal would not deliver affordable homes, but there is a need for the type of housing proposed. However, the proposal would not maintain the character of the area nor be the creation of well-designed healthy places. The Framework promotes the effective use of land, but residential gardens in built-up areas are excluded from the definition of previously developed or brownfield land and there is little evidence large mature gardens constitute under-utilised land. 1 [name]/Q4245/W/24/3351449 Thus, there would be conflict with paragraph 129. By virtue of the harm to the character and appearance of the area and residential amenity, the proposal would not be well-designed, function well, add to the overall quality of the area or promote a high standard of amenity for the purposes of paragraph 135. For these same reasons, and notwithstanding some elements of the scheme reflect local design codes, the proposal would not benefit from the support of paragraph 139.

The housing density, garden to plot ratio, palette of materials and some architectural design features would be broadly in keeping with the surrounding built environment. However, these are neutral matters. Similarly, avoidance of harm to highway safety and the acceptability of the drainage arrangements and construction phase mitigation measures, among other things, are also neutral matters that weigh neither for nor against the scheme.

On the other hand, the net gain of 7 dwellings would contribute to the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and it would make a modest but valuable contribution towards meeting the Council’s housing supply shortfall. Taking into account the scale of development and the extent of the shortfall, this weighs moderately in favour of the proposal. Taking into account the urban location, the short-term economic benefits during construction and longer-term economic benefits during occupation collectively carry limited weight.

I have found that the biodiversity gain condition is broadly capable of being discharged. Nevertheless, there are uncertainties in relation to the baseline due to site clearance before surveys. Moreover, the offsite biodiversity enhancement would not contribute to the local environment. Therefore, the delivery of BNG carries limited positive weight.

Drawing all this together, even if I accepted that the housing shortfall is of the scale suggested by the appellant, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.