Appeal 6004820

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name], Pearce Construction Barnstaple Ltd against the decision of Torridge District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the appeal form and decision notice as this more clearly describes the site than that given on the application form.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • green infrastructure; • the character and appearance of the area; and, • surface water drainage.

Paragraph 13.66 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 October 2018 (LP) states that ‘Open spaces provide important opportunities for sport, recreation and nature conservation as well as contributing to the character of our towns and villages.’ It goes on to state that public open spaces contribute to the green infrastructure network and that there is a general deficiency throughout northern Devon of open space in relation to identified open space standards. It further states that as a result, and in view of its value to the local community, existing open spaces will be protected from other forms of development. Paragraph 13.66 clarifies that the protection extends to both informal and formal open spaces.

As a result, LP Policy DM09 states that development involving the loss of green infrastructure including public open space will only be supported where alternative green infrastructure is provided, or where the green infrastructure network locally is retained or enhanced through redevelopment of a small part of the site.

In light of the policy protecting existing informal open spaces from development, given the stated general deficiency of green infrastructure in northern Devon, given the absence of substantive evidence before me demonstrating otherwise, and given the value and use of the site to the local community as demonstrated through the interested party representations, I find that the appeal site comprises green infrastructure and that LP Policy DM09 applies to the appeal proposal. This is the case despite its private ownership and lack of formal designation in the LP given that these are not exceptions outlined under LP Policy DM09 and given that the public have had access to the space for a considerable period of time. Its use by dog walkers helps to demonstrate its green infrastructure value to the local community.

As the proposal seeks the construction of a dwelling without the provision of alternative green infrastructure and does not propose to retain or enhance the local green infrastructure network, the proposal fails to safeguard green infrastructure.

It follows from the above that the proposed development would result in the loss of, and harm to green infrastructure. As such, it is contrary to LP Policy DM09, the aims of which I have outlined above.

As identified above, LP paragraph 13.66 states that open spaces contribute to the character of our towns and villages.

In relation to this, the appeal site occupies a fairly prominent location between [site address] and [address]. It is viewed in relation to both the dwellings on [site address] and the adjacent grassed open areas to the east of the appeal site and those either side of the footway extending to the west along [address]. As a result, the site contributes to the character of the area through being part of a wider provision of an open green break between built development.

Notwithstanding this, the appeal site forms only a small part of the wider open space and is raised above the open space to its east and above the footway and associated grass verges to [address]. Given this, even with the development, green space and an open green break to built development would be retained, particularly to the east of the site. As a result, the remaining open space would continue to suitably contribute to, and retain, the open low-density character of the immediate area. The small size of the appeal site and retention of the open space to the east would prevent any harmful additional tunnelling effect when experienced from [address], and in this regard the proposal would not harm the contribution that this open space makes to the character of the area.

Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be positioned adjacent to, and viewed in association with, the dwellings forming No’s 1-3 [site address] . It would also follow the form of development to [site address] by virtue of comprising a rendered bungalow with a low-pitched roof. It would face [site address] mirroring the form of the dwellings opposite and by reason of the similar size of the appeal site and dwelling to those existing, it would not harmfully increase the density of development in the area and would not appear incongruous.

While the development would include the provision of two off-street parking spaces, I noted at the time of my site visit that No.28 [site address] opposite the site benefits from off-street parking, as do a couple of other dwellings further along [site address] . As such, the provision of off-street parking would not be harmfully uncharacteristic to the immediate area.

[name] acknowledge that the dwelling would be detached, at an angle to No’s 1- 3 [site address] , and sited slightly closer to the pavement than others in the immediate area, it would be of a similar scale and suitably enclosed by hedge and fencing to mirror No’s 1-3 [site address] and would front the road copying the dwellings opposite. Levels and finished floor levels could be controlled by condition to ensure that the height of the dwelling does not dominate the street. While the dwelling would comprise gable ends, this is a common design feature in the area and given the position of the dwelling fronting [site address] enclosed by planting, the gable ends would not be any more dominant than those to existing dwellings on [site address] .

When viewed from [address], by reason of its raised position and provision of fencing and planting to mirror that to No’s 1-3 [site address] , and by reason of its similar scale, height and materials, the proposal would not appear out of character.

It follows from the above that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. As such, it complies with [name] ST04 and DM04. Amongst other things, these seek to achieve high quality inclusive and sustainable design that responds to the characteristics of the site and wider context, ensure that development reinforce the key characteristics and special qualities of an area, and contribute positively to local distinctiveness. It would also retain the contribution that the wider green infrastructure makes to the character of the area and in this regard would not be contrary to LP Policy DM09. For the same reasons, the proposal would comply with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) with regard to achieving well-designed places.

The application is supported by a Critical Drainage Area Surface Water [name] (the Report) that acknowledges the location of the appeal site within the Bideford Critical Drainage Area. As a result, the Report states that the hierarchy has been reviewed to determine the best way to deal with the discharge of surface water.

The Report states that due to the size of the proposal, water re-use is not suitable; that due to the position of the road and dwelling, ground infiltration is not possible; that there is no waterbody nearby to discharge to; and that there is no surface water, highway drain or other drainage system near the site. As a result, the Report states that after reviewing the hierarchy, the best course of action is connection to a combined sewer.

In response to this, I note the comments from [name] stating that discharging to the public combined sewerage network is not an acceptable proposed method of disposal in the absence of clear evidence to demonstrate why the preferred methods in the [name] have been discounted.

However, I have also had regard to the comments from the Council in its Statement of Case where it agrees that there probably is sufficient land within the ownership of the appellant which makes it likely that a policy compliant surface water drainage scheme could be achieved. I also note the comments from the appellant advising that soakaways or attenuation and discharge are likely solutions.

In light of this, and in the absence of substantive evidence demonstrating otherwise, I find that a suitable pre-commencement condition could be imposed on any grant of permission to ensure that a surface water drainage strategy, that demonstrates compliance with the [name], is submitted to and approved by the Council. This would ensure the provision of a suitable surface water drainage strategy preventing flood risk.

In conclusion on this matter, subject to a condition, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on surface water drainage. As such, it complies with [name] DM04(n) and ST03. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure the provision of effective water management including [name] and reducing existing rates of surface water runoff within [name]. For the same reasons, the proposal would not be contrary to paragraph 181(c) of the Framework that ensures that development incorporates sustainable drainage systems.

The lack of harm to highway safety carries very little weight given that this is a requirement of local planning policy and national guidance.

I acknowledge that the appellant raises concerns regarding the conduct of the Council during the consideration of the planning application. However, this is not a matter before me for consideration in this decision that must be based on the planning merits of the proposal.

Weighing in favour of the proposal, there is an urgent need for housing, and the site is well located close to services and facilities and would provide construction benefits and associated jobs with occupiers supporting local services and facilities through increased spend. As such, the delivery of a dwelling would contribute towards the area’s housing supply and provide other benefits, and its small scale means it would likely be built out relatively quickly. However, given the small scale of the proposal the benefits would be very modest.

Weighing against the proposal, the development would result in the loss of green infrastructure. The relevant policy in this regard is largely consistent with the Framework where it states that planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy places which support healthy lives through the provision of accessible green infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole.

The Council accepts that they cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the Framework. Consequently, Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, 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 in the Framework taken as a whole.

Even taking into account the objective to promote the effective use of land and to significantly boost the supply of housing and the Council’s housing land supply position, I find that the identified adverse impacts of the development in the form of the loss of green infrastructure would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits of the proposal, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

[name] have found no harm with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area and that matters of surface water drainage could be dealt with by condition, I have found that the development would result in an unacceptable loss of green infrastructure. In my view, this is the prevailing consideration, and the development should be regarded as being in conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole.

Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.