Appeal 6004958

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 3 bedroomed dwelling with associated soft and hard landscaping including car parking at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03377/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Following the submission of the appeal, the Council identified it would not contest the reason for refusal related to ecology matters. On the evidence before me and following my site visit, I see no reason to disagree.

I have removed reference within the description of development to matters which do not constitute a description of development.

I have taken the site address from the appeal form, as it more accurately describes the site.

The appellant submitted further drawings at final comments stage which included minor alterations to the presentation of the proposals. These did not substantively change the proposals determined by the Council, however neither the Council nor interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the changes. I am not persuaded that accepting the revised drawings would not result in procedural unfairness to other parties. I have therefore determined the appeal based on the plans before the Council when it made its decision.

In respect of those plans on which the Council made its decision, I have had regard to the comments made in respect of inaccuracies within the submitted drawings. However, I consider the plans before me to be sufficiently accurate to assess the proposal without being prejudicial to interested parties.

The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies at the end of a set of terraced residential buildings, located on the corner of two largely residential streets. The site forms part of the rear and front garden of an existing dwelling. The garden area is mostly enclosed and largely hidden from public views, though at my site visit I observed views over the site from public vantage points, including from Kingsfield and [address]. The site boundary is largely formed of hedgerow and fencing, with some planting to the rear of the fencing. The wider residential area in which the appeal site is located includes hedgerow and tree planting.

The proposal would extend the existing terrace by introducing an additional dwelling of broadly equivalent size and scale to the existing terraced buildings. The proposal would include some additional hedgerow planting, as well as the removal of some existing hedgerow to provide a site access.

Whilst the proposal would introduce additional built development on the current garden area, given its largely enclosed nature the area of front and rear garden does not materially contribute to a sense of openness. Whilst the new dwelling would reduce views over the site, the new dwelling would be set behind the proposed boundary treatment, and would reflect the building pattern of the terrace of which it would form a part. Although views across the plot would be altered by the presence of a dwelling, and the site may be a raised corner plot visible from public vantage points, the scale and extent of the proposal is such that the more expansive views from the public realm of the wider residential area would not be materially altered. Given this, the proposal would not be harmful in this regard.

Although some of the existing hedgerow would be removed to facilitate access to the site, the existing hedgerow is of relatively short length and is juxtaposed with the adjacent fence panels. These fence panels largely block the planting to their rear from public view and do not positively contribute to the character of the area. As this fencing would be largely replaced with new hedgerow planting, it would provide a more continuous length of hedgerow along the boundary when compared to the current situation. When coupled with the removal of some of the hedgerow to provide vehicular access, the overall effect would be neutral. As a result, this would not be harmful to either the appeal site itself or the wider area’s verdant character.

The plot on which the new dwelling would be sited would be broadly comparable in scale to other nearby plots, and in terms of its size, scale, siting and positioning the building itself would be reflective of the terrace of buildings of which it forms a part. As such the proposal would be in keeping with nearby development, and would not appear cramped on its plot when compared to nearby development nor conflict with the surrounding environment. The proposal would therefore respond positively to local context.

Given the above, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would comply with Policies D1 and D2 of the Placemaking Plan (2017). Amongst other matters, these policies require development proposals to contribute positively to local distinctiveness and avoid harm to local character.

Whilst interested parties have raised concerns related to the potential impact of the proposal on highway safety, the Council has not raised an objection in this regard and following my site visit I see no reason to take a different view.

The site is located within the Bath World Heritage Site (the ‘WHS’), and on the evidence before me the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS include its Roman archaeology, hot springs, Georgian town planning and architecture, and green setting. The Council has not identified that the proposal would harm the significance of the WHS, and following my site visit I see no reason to take a different view.

Whilst the Council refers to a potential legal agreement to secure offsite biodiversity net gain, a planning permission would nevertheless be subject to the biodiversity gain condition set out in Schedule 7A of the Act. Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) sets out that circumstances in which a Section 106 agreement may be appropriate include where a significant increase in onsite biodiversity enhancements are proposed or for an off-site biodiversity gains site specifically to provide gains for the development. These are not applicable in this instance. The PPG further sets out that where offsite gains are already registered and subject to a planning obligation or conservation covenant, it may not be necessary to tie them to development with another planning obligation.

The appellant’s [name] – [name] (2025) indicates that the appellant would intend to purchase credits on the open market, and my attention has been drawn to a number of nearby providers. Given this, there is no indication that the biodiversity gain condition would not be sufficient to secure the necessary biodiversity net gain. A legal agreement would not therefore be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

The Council has recommended planning conditions to be imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed. Where suggested wording has been provided, I have made amendments in the interest of precision and enforceability.

Alongside the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

To ensure the proposal does not result in an adverse impact to protected species, it is necessary to secure the mitigation measures set out within the [name] (the ‘PEA’). The appellant’s bat survey also recommends further mitigation measures, which it is also necessary to secure.

Whilst the Council suggests that the proposed biodiversity enhancements set out within the PEA could be secured by condition, the details within the PEA are relatively high level. Therefore, such a condition would not be precise. Equally, although the Council suggest that evidence of these enhancements should be submitted for approval to the Council following their installation, given the lack of specific details for such enhancements I do not consider such a requirement to be precise or enforceable. Furthermore, whilst the drawings include some of the recommended enhancement measures, not all are included nor is detailed information shown.

Therefore, to ensure the proposal does not result in an adverse impact to protected species I have imposed a condition requiring a biodiversity enhancement scheme to be prepared in accordance with the recommendations set out within the PEA, and following approval to be installed and thereafter retained. As the drawings and the PEA identify the installation of certain biodiversity enhancements on the building itself, it is reasonable and necessary for details to be submitted prior to above ground works taking place.

Both parties include reference within their submissions to a need for a condition to control lighting to ensure protected species are not adversely impacted. Whilst a condition controlling internal lighting would not be reasonable or enforceable, I have imposed a condition requiring details for external lighting to be submitted and approved prior to its implementation.

Whilst the Council has suggested a condition to secure 10% biodiversity net gain through provision of a Biodiversity Gain Plan, alongside other supporting information, this would duplicate the biodiversity gain condition imposed by Schedule 7A of the Act, and it is not necessary to include this as a condition within the decision itself.

Whilst the Council has suggested a condition requiring the provision of a Habitat Management Plan setting out how onsite habitats would be managed, monitored and reported, alongside associated costings, for a 30 year period, the PPG indicates that such a plan would be appropriate where a significant increase of onsite biodiversity enhancements is proposed. Given the type and limited extent of onsite habitat units proposed, the proposal would not result in significant onsite biodiversity enhancements and such a condition would not therefore meet the test of reasonableness.

The proposed development would accord with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; p-02 Proposed site plan; p-03 Proposed ground, first and second floor plans; p-04 Proposed front and rear elevations; p-05 Proposed side elevation; and p-06 Proposed section.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the ecological mitigation measures contained within the [name] prepared by [name] and dated July 2025 and within the [name] prepared by [name] and dated August 2025.

No development above ground level shall take place until a scheme for biodiversity enhancement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be prepared in accordance with the details set out within section 6 of the [name] prepared by [name] and dated July 2025. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and retained thereafter.

Prior to the installation of external lighting, full details including height, design, location, and intensity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall then be installed in accordance with the approved details.