Appeal 6005094

The appeal is dismissed.

Cannock Chase Local Plan 2014 (CCLP) referred to in the Decision Notice has been superseded by the Cannock Chase District Local Plan 2018-2040 (CCDLP), which was adopted on 23 March 2026. The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the CCDLP in the context of this appeal.

Appeal decisions must be based on the policies from the development plan prevailing at the time of determination. Policies referred to in the reasons for refusal from the CCLP are no longer relevant and are disregarded. The Council has identified the relevant policies from the CCDLP to this appeal.

A Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) has been submitted with the appeal. Due to the nature of the information and that the Council has had the opportunity to comment on it, I am satisfied that it would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. As such I have had regard to the PRA.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including existing vegetation and the Cannock Chase National Landscape (CCNL); • the living conditions of the occupiers of 145 and [address], with particular reference to privacy and outlook; • protected species, namely bats; and • highway safety.

[address] is located towards the eastern end of a residential ribbon development positioned along the northern side of [address] on the edge of the settlement of Hazelslade. [address]’s junction with [address], the houses are predominantly 2 storey semi-detached and detached houses. As the ribbon development travels east and ground levels rise, there is a change to dormer bungalows and split-level bungalows.

The age and architectural styles of the houses vary, and they generally sit within wide plots containing landscaped front gardens, giving it a uniformed presence. All these factors contribute to a strong degree of harmony that influences the overall character and appearance of this ribbon development.

Due to the subdivision of the existing plot of No. 147, which reflects the characteristics detailed above, the creation of 2 slimmer plots and semi-detached houses within them would appear noticeably narrower in comparison to the other houses along this stretch of [address].

As a result of the houses sitting in an elevated position, some modest retaining features are visible to the buildings, as well as to the rising front gardens and driveways. However, the proposed development would remove the sloping front driveway and each of the new dwellings would have level parking spaces with a forward projecting single garage containing a roof terrace above, as well as a flight of steps leading to a shallow terrace to the front of the house. Despite a lower ridge than No. 149, they would have the appearance of 3-storey dwellings when viewed from [address]. The excessive amount, and dominant form, of built development and hardstanding would appear incongruous in the street scene, compounding the uncharacteristic arrangement of narrower plots and giving it an over-developed and cramped appearance.

[name] trees at No. 145 line the boundary with the appeal site, adjacent to the inclined driveway to be removed. The submitted Tree Survey does not show the extent of the Root Protection Area of these trees, and neither is there an assessment of the proposed changes in ground levels in this area. Without such details, it is unclear an appropriate method statement could be secured by planning condition. Therefore, I cannot conclude with any reasonable certainty that the proposal would not have a negative impact on these trees.

As there would be little scope for landscaping to the front gardens of the new houses and the appeal scheme has the potential to harm existing trees on neighbouring land, this would erode the prevailing landscaped front gardens to the houses along this stretch of [address].

The site is located within the CCNL and Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) requires that regard be had to the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. There is also a duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas. These purposes also include increasing the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the National Landscapes. The Framework also requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of these areas. I have also had regard to relevant case law, including those that have been brought to my attention.

I saw that the undulating landscape, which the ribbon development is located within, consists of 2 distinct elements. To the north of [address] is an expanse of woodland where ground levels rise, giving the houses a backdrop of trees, and open fields to the south where ground levels fall, allowing far reaching views of woodland in the distance.

The elevated and exposed nature of the ribbon development, including the appeal site, makes it prominent within this landscape and highly visible from [address]. Consequently, the harm identified above would be conspicuous and the proposal fails to conserve or enhance the scenic beauty of the CCNL.

I recognise that the appellant has suggested amendments to the scheme, including omitting one of the garages and the 3m high boundary fence, and replacing them with landscaping, as well as a hipped roof to the annexes. However, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the proposal before me.

The unsubstantiated poor condition of the existing dwelling has not led me to a different conclusion on this main issue.

Details of the consent including the garage, steps and retaining wall to the frontage, which I saw have not been completed, are not before me. Nevertheless, the appeal scheme represents a greater level of development, including the provision of an additional garage within the site’s frontage.

Due to the significant intervening distance and the presence of significant woodland surrounding a nearby industrial complex, its presence does not overcome the harm that I have otherwise found.

As the appeal scheme does not constitute isolated homes in the countryside, paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) does not apply.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including existing vegetation and the CCNL, contrary to [name] SO1.2, SO7.4 and SO7.5. These seek amongst other things: development proposals that enhance the quality of the townscape and landscape, including that they are visually attractive, as a result of good layout and landscaping; the protection, conservation and enhancement of landscape character; and resisting development proposals which adversely impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of the CCNL.

To the rear of each dwelling would be an annexe, with accommodation on [address]. These would be built into the rising ground levels, with a flat roof design and 1.8m high balustrade along the boundaries with Nos. 145 and 149.

This would present a greater level of massing in relation to No. 145 compared to the existing single storey hipped roof garage along the boundary. The greater level of bulk proposed in such close proximity to the rear elevation of No. 145 and part of the garden, which are positioned at a lower level, would reduce the level of outlook from these areas, as well as have an unacceptable overbearing and dominating effect. Whilst it is indicated that the 1.8m high balustrade is to address the potential for views from the roof terrace into neighbouring gardens, its presence in such proximity and elevated stature would give the perception of being overlooked and a loss of privacy to occupiers of No. 145.

A further annexe would be created along the boundary with No. 149, where there is currently no structure of this nature in this location. Additional bulk would also be formed through the erection of a 3m high privacy fence along this part of the boundary with No. 149. Though ground levels are higher and there is established vegetation along the boundary to this neighbouring property, the overall impact on No. 149 would be similar to that at No. 145.

Despite the elevated position of side windows at No. 149, their positioning directly facing the side elevation of No. 147, as well as the presence of established vegetation along the boundary, I found their impact in terms of overlooking into the appeal site to be limited. Moreover, from the evidence before me and from my observations on site, the window arrangement, including levels, to the front and rear elevations of No. 149 are broadly reflective of similar houses within the ribbon development. Whilst there are full height patio doors and a modest terrace to the front of No. 149, these face towards the views beyond [address] and any views to the side would be to front gardens where a different level of privacy is expected compared to that of a rear garden. Consequently, the window arrangement at No. 149 has not swayed me away from my findings.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 145 and 149, with particular reference to privacy and outlook. This conflicts with CCDLP Policy SO2.2, which includes the requirement for development proposals to provide satisfactory outlook and privacy for existing residents.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations) impose a duty on me to consider whether [name] would be affected by the development and whether associated mitigation measures would be effective. Bats and their roosts are protected.

Confirmation is given in the PRA that no bats or signs of bats were found during the survey in either the existing dwelling or detached garage, with the former representing a low suitability in respect to the availability of roosting potential. Both buildings also represent a high suitability in respect of flightpaths to suitable habitats in the wider environment and provide high foraging habitats. In accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust’s guidance, a single bat emerge survey should be undertaken. Such a survey is not before me and should be carried out before planning permission is granted to ensure all relevant material considerations, including whether any bats are using the dwelling and any appropriate mitigation, are addressed when making the decision.

Had the survey been before me and I had found that the proposal would not harm protected species, this would have been a neutral factor in the planning balance.

Consequently, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on protected species, namely bats, contrary to CCDLP Policy S07.1, which, inter alia, supports the protection of legally protected and priority species populations.

There would be room within the frontage of each of the new dwellings to accommodate 2 parking spaces, with a further space within the garage. The accesses from [address] would cross the pavement and a grass verge before reaching the appeal site. Front boundary treatments to the back of the grass verge along this stretch of [address] are predominantly low brick walls with brick piers, and some with railings above. With the exception of telegraph poles, the only encroachment into the grass verge is on the appeal site and appears to be unfinished steps along the side boundary with No. 149, which would be removed.

Although appropriate visibility splays have not been presented, the proposed accesses would be consistent with the established arrangement along [address]. Based on the evidence before me and from my observations, in my judgement, a driver exercising the degree of caution that it is reasonable to expect when using the accesses, would have sufficient views of oncoming highway users.

Moreover, as the appeal scheme would remove the steep driveway and replace with a level frontage for parking, there are no reasons to question the suitability of the gradient.

It is indicated that surface water would be disposed of via soakaways and the submission indicates the provision of 9 soakaways within the dwellings’ frontages. There is no compelling evidence before me that this would cause harm to highway safety, and no persuasive argument is before me that in this case details relating to drainage and driveway materials could not be secured by planning conditions in the event the appeal was allowed.

Bringing all these factors together, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on highway safety. The Council has not identified conflict with the development plan in terms of highway safety. However, it would accord with the Framework, which requires development to have an acceptable impact on highway safety.

Contained within the Council’s Officer Report is the indication that the appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence for the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European Site as defined in the Habitats Regulations. The appellant’s submission signifies that a financial contribution towards measures to mitigate the adverse impacts resulting from increased recreational pressure would be required and secured by a legal agreement. However, no such mechanism is before me. Whilst details have not been provided by the Council, based on my knowledge of the SAC, this approach accords with the mitigation developed for the SAC. Nevertheless, as I have found the appeal scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC or undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

The proposal would make a positive contribution in the delivery of 2 dwellings with annexes that provide the potential for flexible and supportive living, with an enhancement to biodiversity on the site. It is claimed that these dwellings would be energy efficient and contain water saving technology, though limited information has been provided to substantiate this. There would also be associated economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwellings are occupied. Due to the limited scale of the proposal and thereby the limited scale of the benefits, I attribute them limited weight in the planning balance.

Following the adoption of the CCDLP, the Council now has a 5-year housing land supply, a position which has not been challenged by the appellant. In the absence of contrary evidence, I find no reason to reach a different conclusion and paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is not applicable.

In the absence of a mechanism to secure the dwelling as self-build, I am unable to give weight to this factor.

As part of determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality and opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s disability or age.

The proposal would be for the appellant’s personal and extended family use and seeks to make access inclusive for occupants with disabilities. This must be balanced against the harm I have identified above. I have been provided with little evidence to demonstrate that these benefits could not be delivered in a less harmful way. Therefore, I conclude that these are not matters that outweigh the harm identified.

A lack of harm or policy compliance in respect of flooding, waste collection and contamination, would have a neutral effect which weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

The Framework is clear that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives. These are economic, social and environmental objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways so opportunities can be taken to secure gains across each of the different objectives. I have considered the appeal before me on its individual merits with due regard to these objectives.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.