Appeal 6005615

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 2-bed semi-detached dwelling at [site address] , Bilbrook, Staffordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01009/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development in the header and my decision above is taken from the planning application form. It is evident from the plans that an existing garage on the appeal site would need to be demolished in order to allow the proposed dwelling to be erected. I have assessed the appeal on the basis the development includes the demolition of the garage.

There is reference in the submissions to an emerging local plan (eLP), which I understand has been the subject of public examination. It appears the eLP is well progressed towards adoption but the Council has suggested that the draft policies may be subject to change. Consequently, I afford the eLP policies limited weight in my assessment of this appeal.

The main issues are whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions having regard to (i) noise effects on the internal spaces and ventilation, and (ii) the acceptability of the proposed garden space having regard to useability, outlook and noise.

The proposed house would be on garden land to the side of the appeal property. The site lies within a small residential cul de sac that I found to be generally quiet. However, the rear boundary of the appeal property adjoins a railway line. The appellant’s noise impact assessment (NIA) describes a noise survey carried out over several days on the appeal site. It concludes that railway noise is the dominant environmental noise source affecting the site with distant road traffic noise and local activity being comparatively minor.

The NIA explains how the measured noise data has been used to predict external noise levels at the facades of the proposed house, both during the daytime and nighttime. From these, it predicts internal noise levels having regard to situations when windows would be open and would be shut. The NIA refers to recommended standards in noise guidance documents1 to establish whether the internal areas of the house would be subject to unacceptable noise levels.

Table 5.4 of the NIA indicates that internal noise levels would exceed daytime and nighttime guideline figures when windows are open on the rear, side and front walls of the house. The NIA accepts that there is a likely need for the affected windows to be kept shut most of the time or to be open for only short durations to maintain acceptable internal noise conditions.

The NIA sets out details of sound reduction glazing that would be provided to ensure acceptable internal noise levels when windows are closed. Also, passive ventilators such as trickle vents and air bricks are suggested as measures to maintain an air path within the building even with shut windows. However, the NIA accepts that such measures may not provide sufficient airflow to prevent overheating. Accordingly, it is suggested that a form of mechanical ventilation or cooling system may be necessary to maintain comfortable conditions without relying on open windows as a main source of ventilation.

The Council raises concern over the reliance on mechanical ventilation systems as it is suggested residents would want to open windows for fresh air. However, the proposed windows would not be sealed and they could be opened by residents for ventilation purposes if they desired. The suggested ventilation measures would provide residents with an alternative to opening windows to maintain a comfortable internal living environment in terms of temperature, air quality and noise.

Furthermore, the NIA identifies the dominant railway noise as being caused by the transient events of trains passing the site. I would envisage the occasional, short term disturbance caused by train noise would not require all windows being permanently shut during the daytime. Nighttime railway noise could disrupt sleep if windows are left open. However, it would be reasonable for residents to rely upon the suggested ventilation systems rather than opened windows to provide satisfactory living conditions during warm nights.

The NIA is based upon measured noise generated from the existing use of the railway. It does not consider potential noisier effects due to a future increase in the number of passing trains or engineering works being carried out during the nighttime. However, it is likely that any additional noise generated from the railway would be either as a result of brief events such as trains passing or for temporary periods when repairs or maintenance works are carried out. In such circumstances, it would be reasonable to rely on closed windows and passive or mechanical ventilation measures to achieve acceptable internal noise levels.

Therefore, I conclude the development would provide acceptable internal living conditions having regard to the issues of noise and ventilation. In these regards, it 1 [name]:8233:2014, The Professional Practice Guidance on Planning and Noise 2017 and the World Health Organisation’s Guidelines for [name] 1999 would accord with policy EQ9 of the [name] 2012 (the CS). Amongst other things, this policy resists new housing in the vicinity of noise generating uses unless measures to suppress noise can be provided. The garden space.

Appendix 6 of the CS sets out standards relating to the space around dwellings. The proposed house would have 2 bedrooms and so under the provisions of appendix 6 the rear garden area should have a minimum length of 10.5m and a minimum area of 42m2. The proposed house would have parking spaces to the front and garden to the side and rear. It is common ground between the Council and the appellant that the proposed garden would exceed the minimum standard in terms of area but it would not accord with the minimum length figure. However, paragraph 1.6 of appendix 6 states that standards may be relaxed if adequate privacy and outlook can be achieved.

None of the rear area of garden would be directly overlooked. Also, the privacy of the side garden would be preserved if an existing hedgerow along the boundary with [address] is retained as shown on the plans. The rear garden would be narrow and it would feel quite enclosed by a proposed boundary fence and the back wall of the house. However, the garden to the side would be deeper and it would provide a reasonable outlook both towards the railway over the boundary fence as well as towards the road. As such, parts of the garden would provide a satisfactory outlook and sense of space.

The garden would allow for sitting out, drying clothes and some gardening activities. The awkward configuration of the outdoor space would restrict the scope for children’s play. However, as well as the garden to the dwelling there is an open grassed area on the opposite side of the cul de sac to the appeal site. This public area would provide an additional play space near to and within sight of the house. In light of this context, the shortcomings of the proposed garden in terms of providing play space would be acceptable.

The noise guidance documents referred to in the NIA indicate that noise levels in outdoor amenity areas should ideally not exceed 50-55dB LAeq,16hr. Even when considering the mitigation effects of the fence on the boundary with the railway, the NIA accepts the daytime noise from passing trains in the garden would be within the approximate range of 61-64 LAeq,16hr and so above the guideline maximum levels. The referred to noise guidance documents recognise that guideline values may not be achievable in all circumstances. Also, future residents of the development could potentially provide a partially enclosed garden structure so that outdoor seating benefits from a quieter environment. Nonetheless, the evidence within the NIA indicates the occupants’ enjoyment of the garden could be adversely affected by noise.

In summary, I conclude the development would provide a satisfactory garden area in terms of useability and outlook, even though it would not fully comply with CS appendix 6. However, the garden would be unacceptably affected by noise and in these regards the development would not fully accord with CS policy EQ9. Other concerns.

Interested parties have raised other concerns with the development. The proposed house would be a similar height and design to other properties on the cul de sac. The proposal would form a short terrace of 3 houses and so it would be slightly at odds with the other local properties that tend to be semi-detached. Nonetheless, the scheme would largely reflect the existing built context in terms of following the pattern of development and it would not be prominent as it would be towards the end of the road. The house would not appear cramped on the plot due to the open side garden and the front wall being set back from the pavement.

The rear windows would overlook the railway whereas the front windows would provide views of the road rather than towards any other residence. Also, the side windows would not lead to an intrusive loss of privacy. By reason of its positioning and separation distance from nearby houses, the development would avoid a harmful loss of light to any other dwelling. Given the scale of the proposal, noise and parking associated with construction works are likely to be limited and in any event for a temporary period. As such, the development would avoid unacceptable harm to living conditions at any nearby residence.

The plans indicate 2 parking spaces to the front of the dwelling. Even if the development would result in additional street parking I see no reason why this could not be accommodated safely either within [address] or on nearby residential roads. The proposal is likely to attract only limited additional traffic and parking and so it would not prejudice highway safety.

There is no mention of trees within nearby streets needing to be removed due to the proposal. Moreover, there is little evidence to suggest the development would cause harm to any protected species, even if the railway line corridor is used by foraging bats. It would be reasonable to impose a planning condition that requires bat and bird boxes to be included as part of the development to ensure it includes measures to safeguard wildlife. The application form indicates the statutory biodiversity gain condition would apply if planning permission were granted.

I see no reason why the development would have adverse effects on the operation or maintenance of the railway or indeed on access to railway land compared to the existing situation. The above factors fail to justify a refusal of planning permission and so they do not affect my overall conclusion. Points in support of the proposal and planning balance.

Generally, I have found the development would be acceptable when assessed against the main issues. However, the proposed garden would not provide an acceptable environment in terms of noise and so the proposal would be contrary to CS policies when read as a whole. It follows to consider whether other factors justify granting planning permission contrary to the development plan.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires the Council to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide at least 5 years’ worth of housing land against its housing requirements. The officer’s report on the planning application leading to this appeal states the Council is currently only able to demonstrate 0.87 years of housing land supply against the 5 year requirement. This is a substantial shortfall. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. This states planning permission should be granted unless the circumstances in either sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) or (ii) apply.

There are no Framework policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance that also provide strong reason to refuse the appeal development. Therefore, sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework does not apply. It follows under the terms of sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) to consider the benefits of the proposal against the adverse impacts of the development.

The development would make only a modest contribution towards the supply of new housing. Nonetheless, the benefits in these regards attracts moderate weight given the significant shortfall in housing land supply.

Furthermore, the Framework supports the development of housing on small sites within existing settlements. The proposed dwelling would be within an established residential area and it would provide occupants with good access to local services and public transport links. In these regards, it would accord with the aim set out in the Framework to promote walking, cycling and public transport.

Paragraph 125 of the Framework states that planning decisions should support the development of under-utilised land, especially if this would help meet identified needs for housing. The proposed introduction of an additional house on the appeal site would accord with this policy.

Overall, I attach significant weight to the benefits of the proposal when considered against the policies of the Framework. The unacceptable level of noise to the garden means the proposal would not accord with the Framework policy to resist new development that is adversely affected by noise. However, noise from the railway would generally occur for short periods rather than consistently. As such, I attach moderate weight to the adverse living conditions at the development.

Therefore, I find the harmful effects of the development would not significantly nor demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The circumstances as set out in sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) do not apply and so planning permission should be granted under the terms of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. This support from the Framework in favour of the proposal provides sufficient justification to grant planning permission contrary to the policies of the CS.

I have regard to the conditions suggested by the Council having regard to the advice on conditions in the Framework. Where required, I have made amendments for precision reasons and to avoid unnecessary pre-commencement requirements.

I have imposed condition 2 that lists the approved plans for clarity reasons. Condition 3 will help ensure the development is served by adequate foul and surface water drainage systems that have an acceptable effect on the environment and avoid exacerbating flood risk. I see no reason why this condition should include advice on the preferred drainage systems as the Council would be able to assess the acceptability of any proposals once details are submitted. Condition 4 is imposed to ensure the development is of a satisfactory appearance.

Condition 5 is required to minimise the noise effects of the railway on living conditions at the proposed development and to ensure the property is adequately ventilated. Condition 6 is imposed to support local wildlife. Further information on bat and bird boxes is required as the submitted details are insufficient. Condition 7 seeks to minimise the effects of parking associated with the development on the highway. There is no need for this condition to refer to drainage as this is covered by condition 3. Condition 8 looks to promote the use of sustainable modes of travel to and from the development.

The Council has suggested a condition to remove permitted development rights that would allow the enlargement of the proposed house without expressed consent. However, the garden area to serve the proposed dwelling would be of a sufficient size to meet the Council’s guidelines on external space. The suggested condition is unnecessary in order to ensure an adequate amount of useable private space is retained. Therefore, this condition has not been imposed.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 1200 revision B, 1220 revision B and 1250 revision B.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence, apart from the demolition of the existing garage, until plans showing foul and surface water drainage systems to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Drainage systems in accordance with the approved details shall be provided prior to the development being first brought into use and thereafter they shall be maintained and retained.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roof of the dwelling hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling at [site address] .

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, a detailed noise mitigation scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be based on the findings and recommendations of the ParkerJones Acoustics Noise Impact Assessment (12 November 2025) and shall include: a) a schedule of all glazing specifications, demonstrating compliance with the minimum sound reduction indices (R(w) + C(tr)) appropriate to each façade exposure category; b) details of all background ventilation systems, including passive trickle ventilators or mechanical ventilation/comfort-cooling systems, demonstrating that: - the required minimum acoustic performance (Dn,e,(w) + C(tr)) is achieved with ventilators in the open position; or - where mechanical ventilation is proposed, internal noise generated by the system will not exceed 30 dB LAeq in bedrooms and living rooms. c) full construction details of the proposed acoustic boundary treatment, demonstrating that it meets or exceeds the performance assumptions within the Noise Impact Assessment; and d) confirmation that the combined glazing, ventilation and façade specifications will achieve the internal ambient noise levels set out in BS 8233:2014 and ProPG (2017) under closed-window conditions with background ventilation operating. The approved noise mitigation scheme shall be fully implemented before first occupation of the dwelling and it shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, full details of a bat and bird box scheme to include a minimum of 1 bat box and 1 bird box integrated to the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be fully installed prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and it shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, the car parking spaces and driveway as shown on the approved plans shall be hard surfaced in a bound material. Thereafter the parking areas shall be retained for the lifetime of the development and shall only be used for the parking of vehicles.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, the timber cycle enclosure and Sheffield stand as shown on the approved plans shall be provided. Thereafter the cycle enclosure and stand shall be retained and shall only be used for the storage and parking of cycles.