Appeal 6006739

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the site is in a suitable location having regard to policies that seek to control development in rural areas; • whether the proposed development would be at risk of flooding; • whether the proposal would conserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA); and • the effect of the development on highway safety.

The Council’s overarching strategy for the distribution of development is set out in Policy SUS2 of the [name], Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (LP). The supporting text to the policy explains that its purpose is to provide the best access to services and facilities, without putting greater reliance on public transport solutions. To do this, the policy promotes a hierarchy of growth where most development is directed towards the larger settlements, followed by main towns. In rural areas, housing is limited to that where local needs are met. In that context, the LP adds that by using neighbourhood development plans, communities can allocate sites or introduce a development boundary.

Otherwise, housing is restricted to that which is affordable, for rural workers, or sub-division and replacement dwellings, amongst others. LP Policy HOUS6 is concerned with such developments and adds that replacement dwellings will be permitted on a one-for-one basis provided the new dwelling can be accommodated within the existing curtilage.

Although the village is not a defined settlement for the purposes of the LP, the appeal site is close to some services and facilities, including a limited bus service, builder’s yard, pub, school, and village hall. Despite a lack of pavement or streetlighting, future occupiers would be very likely to benefit from having easy reach of the type of facility that helps maintain thriving communities. Even so, and despite some tendency for home working, access to the vast majority of shops, jobs, and services would still require the use of a private vehicle. Likewise, home deliveries would not promote sustainable transport movements.

It is asserted that the village will not remain a diverse, vibrant, and prosperous community if appropriate development is not permitted, where support in policy for sub-division and growth to meet local needs is highlighted. Even if one of the pair of semi-detached dwellings were to be considered to be within an existing curtilage, the proposal is not on a one-for-one basis. Despite its description, the scheme cannot therefore comply with LP Policy HOUS6. Furthermore, in conflict with SUS23, it has not been shown that an additional open market property would meet any local needs.

For the reasons given, the development would not be in a suitable location having regard to policies that seek to control development in rural areas. As such, there would be conflict with LP policies SUS2 and HOUS6.

The appellant submits that flood risk concerns are overstated, noting that the site lies within [name] 1 and is not subject to fluvial or coastal flooding. They also contend that, whilst there is some surface water flooding affecting the adjacent highway, the site itself is at relatively low risk and has not experienced known harm historically. However, Environment Agency flood mapping within the evidence shows that the appeal site is at risk of surface water flooding. This is representative of an ‘other source of flooding’ that footnote 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) says requires a site-specific flood risk

Policy ENV5 of the LP requires development to avoid areas at risk of flooding from all sources, including surface water, to ensure that flood risk is not exacerbated elsewhere, and to demonstrate that occupants would be safe for the lifetime of the development, with safe access and escape where necessary. It also requires that development be directed to areas of lowest flood risk and supported, where relevant, by appropriate evidence.

This is consistent with Framework paragraphs 174 and 175 of the Framework which say, in part, that the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. If this cannot be passed the exception test may have to be applied, whereby both sustainability benefits and a demonstrably safe development that does not increase flood risk elsewhere should be satisfied.

The proposal includes mitigation measures such as raising finished floor levels by approximately 600mm, the use of permeable surfaces, and the introduction of a low boundary wall to direct surface water away from the dwellings. The appellant further maintains that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere and that the requirement for a County wide sequential test would be disproportionate, given the small-scale nature of the scheme. Although of a small scale, there is no substantive evidence that demonstrates why there are no reasonably available sites that might be appropriate or justify a smaller than County wide search area. As such, the sequential test would not be passed.

Even if I were to accept that the dwellings would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community, as required by the exception test, there is no supporting site-specific flood risk assessment or technical analysis to convincingly demonstrate the nature and extent of the risk or the effectiveness of the suggested mitigation measures. Moreover, matters such as flood depth, velocity, flow routing, climate change impacts, and drainage have not been shown to have been calculated. As such, the assertions that the development would be safe, would not increase flood risk elsewhere, and would maintain safe access during flood events are not substantiated by robust evidence.

Additionally, while the condition of the existing building is acknowledged, the reliance on measures such as raising floor levels and diverting surface water indicates that flood risk is present and must be managed. In that context, an interested party in support of the scheme refers to current flooding issues being addressed by the proposal. In the absence of detailed evidence, I cannot be satisfied that such mitigation would not displace floodwater or exacerbate flooding elsewhere, or that safe access and egress could be maintained. That the appellant describes no record of occupants being endangered by flood water for over 100 years does not alter my view on this matter. Moreover, a different development, covering a larger area is proposed which could alter the effect of surface water flood risk.

For the reasons given and based on the evidence provided, I cannot be satisfied that the appeal scheme would be at no risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be at risk of flooding. As such, there would be conflict with LP Policy ENV5.

The appeal site is within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which is a designated Natural Landscape (NL). The statutory purposes of the NL are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, and it is necessary to seek to further these purposes in decision making. Furthermore, in such areas the Framework attaches great weight to conserving and enhancing its scenic beauty.

Positioned amongst a high-quality NL setting, the village of [site address] , within which the appeal site lies, is designated as a Conservation Area (CA). Here, there is a statutory duty to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area; and where great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The significance of the CA is derived from its historic origins as a coastal village with well-defined boundaries, attractive properties, many of which are listed, and its unspoiled green core.

The Council is content with the total loss of the appeal building which is a non-designated heritage asset. While not identified as an ‘important building’ within its CA appraisal, its history and context explained within interested party representations is acknowledged. Moreover, its petite architectural design makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. That said, the oil tank, rendered rear elevation, and side garage extension do not add to the building’s overall quality. On approaching the village from the south, a characterful property and prominent shed building are noticeable before reaching the appeal building. Adjoining the CA there is a builder’s yard beyond the appeal site that contains modern buildings. These contrast with the more traditional properties found in the CA.

Matters of design, scale, and use of materials for the properties are not in dispute between the main parties. Support from the Council’s Conservation Officer was however heavily caveated. There are concerns that the visibility splays, parking areas, and gardens would create a harmful incursion into the countryside. Even though boundaries may have recently altered, I have assessed the scheme in its present-day sense. With that in mind, the access arrangements and parking area for the northern property would be read within the context of the builder’s yard and a nearby row of cottages. Although the total area given for these features is not particularly small, the 1m high stone walling would compliment others found in the area. Moreover, the hedging shown on the plans to the rear would provide a natural boundary feature to a car park beyond it.

The access, parking and surfacing arrangements for the southern property would extend into some undisturbed land and a small part of a field outside the CA. This would however be positioned between the prominent roadside shed and opposite other properties. Of a proportionate scale, and in acknowledgement of historic boundary features, it would nevertheless include hedging that would not look out of place. There would also be a natural stone-faced wall; the detailed design and height of which could be secured by way of a planning condition if I were otherwise minded to allow the appeal. Overall, having paid regard to the updated NL management plan, the scheme would not unduly domesticate or harm the landscape setting on the edge of the village. The sensitive use of local materials and soft landscaping would show a willingness on the part of the appellant to further the purposes of the NL. It would have a neutral and thus preserving effect on the character and appearance of the CA as well as the NL.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would conserve the character and appearance of the CA. As such, there would be no conflict with LP policies ENV1, ENV4, ENV10 or ENV15. Collectively in this respect, and amongst other things, these aim to ensure developments do not harm local landscape character, distinctiveness, and heritage assets, permitting schemes where hard and soft landscaping is successfully integrated with the character of the site and its surrounding area.

The Council is concerned that the northern visibility splay shown on the plans would not be compliant given it crosses third-party land, and where planting or other development that may not require planning permission could occur. The appellant says the current 2m high boundary wall will be reduce to 1m, which would improve visibility. In the event planting were allowed to grow, the section of land within the sight line is extremely small and provides part of an open entrance to the builder’s yard. It is more likely this space would be maintained at a low level to encourage intervisibility between the road and business land.

It is also not clear what form of permitted development might take place here, though even if additional vegetation or built form were introduced, my own observations were that drivers of vehicles would still have a very good sight of oncoming pedestrians or vehicles in both directions. Furthermore, despite any non-compliance, traffic movement within the village was rather sedate, where speeds seemed to be naturally low as a result of the layout of this village environment. I agree with the Council that inconsiderate parking would carry little weight in these particular circumstances, though for the above reasons, a ‘threat to safety’ remains most unlikely.

Having paid regard to the Framework and the Council’s highway officer comments, I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposal would be unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. As such, there would be no conflict with LP Policy COM7.

The Council concedes that one of its reasons for refusal relating to the loss of a bird nesting habitat could be overcome by the imposition of a planning condition. I find no reason to disagree.

The planning history is noted. Furthermore, I have had regard to the various correspondence in respect of the processing of the application. However, these have no bearing on the decision which is based on the planning merits of the proposal. Additionally, any support for the proposal is not a reason in itself to allow unacceptable development.

The proposal would make use of some previously developed land, providing 2 sustainably designed family homes. Furthermore, the social benefits of housing delivery can be afforded significant weight, yet these are softened by the fact that the additional dwelling would make a very modest contribution to addressing a housing shortfall. The scheme would also bring some limited economic benefits to the construction industry and thereafter through additional consumer spending in the local economy.

Additionally, as it has not been shown how self-build housing could be secured, the support in paragraph 129 in the Framework for different types of housing carries little weight. Within that context, as I cannot be certain that the development would be delivered as self-build housing, and in the absence of the necessary supporting information, it is not known whether or not the requirements and possible benefits with respect to biodiversity net gain could be achieved. As such, I attach little weight to any associated environmental gains.

Considering the main issues in the round, I have concluded that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety, or the character or appearance of the CA or NL. Even so, these issues are not outweighed by the harm caused by flood risk and the suitability of the location for open market housing. Furthermore, the policies identified in this respect are broadly consistent with those set out in the Framework and can therefore be given substantial weight. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

It is undisputed that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, where there is a current supply of about 2.53 years.

Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework indicates that, where the requisite housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, permission should be granted unless: i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. 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.

Footnote 7 states that policies in the Framework relating to flood risk qualify as protection policies under the first limb of paragraph 11 d). As set out above, there is a strong reason for refusing the proposed development on this matter alone. Consequently, the tilted balance in the second limb does not apply and it is not necessary to explore in any more depth the sustainability credentials of the appeal site’s location. Accordingly, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the Framework.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework.

I have already concluded above that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. Furthermore, even when considered cumulatively, there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.