Appeal 6005680

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] 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 application form as neither party has provided confirmation that a revised address has been agreed.

The application seeks outline planning permission with matters of Access and Scale for consideration. As a result, Appearance, Layout and Landscaping are reserved matters with any details related to these matters on the plans before me indicative only.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for housing with particular regard to the local development strategy; and, • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to visibility.

The appeal site comprises an open area of land between two residential properties in a small rural hamlet. The appeal site rises up in level significantly from the road.

Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 October 2018 (LP) sets the spatial development strategy relating to the area. It includes provisions for development within Local Centres, Villages, [name] and the Countryside. [name] 4.10 states that the strategy will ensure that development does not exacerbate the areas dispersed settlement pattern, and that any conflicts with the principles of sustainable development are minimised.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the site lies outside of a Local Centre and Village, and I have no reason to disagree. Furthermore, the evidence before me does not indicate that the site falls within a [name]. As a result, the site lies within the Countryside as defined by LP Policy ST07. LP Policy ST07 states that in the Countryside, development will be limited to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location. As the development comprises new build open market housing that does not need to be restricted to a Countryside location, to gain support from LP Policy ST07, the proposal would need to meet a local economic or social need in the settlement.

In this regard, the appeal is not accompanied by substantive and compelling evidence that the appeal proposal is meeting a local need in the settlement. As such, a need in the settlement has not been demonstrated.

[name] acknowledge that the appeal site comprises infill between other dwellings, the spatial strategy seeks to ensure that proposals do not exacerbate the areas dispersed settlement pattern, and that any conflicts with the principles of sustainable development are minimised. Although the provision of a single dwelling between existing buildings would not significantly exacerbate the areas dispersed development pattern, the site is approximately 2.7km from the closest centre with a range of services and facilities and as such is not well served by a range of services and facilities in close proximity. In this regard I note the Councils case that whilst the proposal would not result in a physically isolated dwelling, it would be functionally isolated from services and facilities.

Given the distances to a range of services and facilities, with access via roads with a 60mph speed limit and generally without pavements and lighting, I find that occupiers of the development would be reliant upon the use of the car for the majority of journeys as walking and cycling would not be attractive. Given the distance to a range of services and facilities, and given that the proposal is of a small scale limiting support for nearby services and facilities, I come to this conclusion even acknowledging that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that rural residents will be more reliant upon the use of the car with development in rural areas supporting rural viability and the economy.

It follows from the above that the appeal site is not an appropriate location for housing, with particular regard to the local spatial development strategy. As such, it is contrary to LP Policy ST07, the aims of which I have outlined above.

The appeal is in outline form but with the matter of Access for consideration. As a result, the provision of a suitable and safe access is for consideration as part of the appeal. The road to the site frontage is narrow and falls slightly from west to east.

The application is accompanied by drawing number 3 [name]. This shows visibility splays to either side of the proposed access to the site frontage. No other plans are before me proposing or showing alternative visibility splays or demonstrating that alternative safe access can be achieved. The lack of collision data or speed survey from the Council does not demonstrate that the access would be safe. Given the increase in vehicle usage as a result of the proposal, however small, it is necessary to ensure any access to the highway is safe.

By reason of the site frontage being on part of a very shallow bend, and by reason of the extent of visibility splays shown, the visibility splays clearly cross the driveway to the neighbouring property forming No.1 Westcotts and a small piece of land outside of the site to the east at the boundary with Paddons.

I have had regard to the agreement between the main parties that a 2.4m ‘X’ axis distance is accepted, and that the speed of traffic to the site frontage is likely to be less than the 60mph limit reducing the extent of visibility splay required. From my observations at the site visit, I have no reason to disagree.

However, the application is not accompanied by substantive evidence clearly demonstrating the extent of lower site lines that would be acceptable, or that acceptable reduced site lines could be provided solely within land under the applicant’s control. [name] note a suggested 2.4 x 43 metre recommended visibility splay by the Highway Authority reflecting 30mph speeds, I cannot be sure from the plans before me that these are achievable within land controlled by the applicant. Moreover, I do not have alternative visibility splay distances proposed on plans before me. In the absence of such information and given that Access is for consideration as part of the application, I cannot be sure that suitable visibility splays could be provided. In the absence of certainty in this regard, I do not find it reasonable for the matter to be dealt with by condition.

Given that the applicant would not have control over land in third party ownership, a condition requiring the provision of the visibility splays shown on the proposed plans would not meet the tests of reasonableness and enforceability. Furthermore, a lack of control of the land within the visibility splay means that there would be no guarantee that the splay would remain free from obstruction.

It follows from the above that due to the lack of substantive evidence, I cannot conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety, with particular regard to visibility. As such, it is contrary to LP policies ST10 and DM05. Amongst other things, these seek to reduce the environmental and social impacts of transport by ensuring that access to new development is safe and appropriate, and that all development ensure safe and well designed vehicular access and egress. For the same reasons, the proposal would be contrary to paragraph 116 of the Framework that states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

I acknowledge that there have been previous consents on the site, but these were a long time ago, considered against different local plan policies and pre-date the introduction of the Framework. As such, I give them very limited weight.

I have had regard to the proposal providing sufficient parking, with a lack of harm to designated landscapes, flood risk, living conditions, ecology and landscape. However, as these are requirements of local planning policy and national guidance, I give these matters very little weight. Support for the proposal from the Parish Council, particularly in the absence of reasons for their support, does not outweigh the conflict with LP policies and the harm identified above.

My attention has been drawn to a planning permission1 for the demolition of two barns and erection of four dwellings at [address]. It is clear from the related [name] that this permission was facilitated through the presence of an established fall-back position. Furthermore, other references by the appellant to nearby infill from the evidence before me relates to a lawful development certificate for a car repair business. Given this, these proposals are not directly comparable to the appeal before me. Moreover, I am required to consider the appeal on its merits and as such these other proposals carry little weight.

Weighing in favour of the proposal there would be benefits to the supply and mix of housing in the area, to the local rural economy/vitality and trades from the build and occupation of the property, and it could be built out quickly making an efficient use of land comprising infill with minimal landscape harm. However, given the small scale of the scheme the benefits would be very modest.

Weighing against the proposal, the development would be contrary to the local development strategy and cause harm to highway safety. The relevant policies are largely consistent with the Framework where it states that planning decisions should guide development towards sustainable solutions and should only be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, because of the provisions of footnote 7, paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework should be applied. The appeal proposal would provide a number of benefits, including providing much needed housing which would contribute towards the supply and mix of housing in the area and could be built out quickly making an efficient use of land, and benefit the local rural economy/vitality from construction works and future occupiers using local services and facilities. However, given the small scale of the development, the benefits would be very modest.

In contrast, I have found that the appeal proposal would be contrary to the local development strategy and would harm highway safety. I give this harm significant weight. Accordingly, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Overall, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.