Appeal 6008841

The appeal is dismissed and permission for erection of new dwelling with detached garage and garden is refused.

The appeal is against the failure of the Council to give notice of a decision within the prescribed period. The Council’s appeal statement confirms that had they determined the application, planning permission would have been refused for the following reason: The proposed development is outside any defined settlement limits and therefore falls within the open countryside. The site is located in an unsustainable location with no facilities or bus service within close proximity. Occupiers of the proposed development would be reliant on the private car to access facilities and amenities that are not available within close proximity to the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SP1, SD1, DM2, CP1, CP6 and CP8 of the [name] 2011- 2028 and Policies A5 and SB1 of the Taunton Deane Site Allocations and Development Management Plan 2016.

Thus, I consider the main issue is whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the appeal proposal having regard to the development plan and the appeal site’s proximity to services and facilities.

The appeal site lies outside of the defined settlement limits of any of the settlements set out in Policy SP1 of the [name] 2011-2028 adopted September 2012 (CS). Accordingly, the appeal site is located in the open countryside where development plan policies strictly manage development. The proposal would not comply with any of the exceptions set out in Policies CP8 and DM2 of the CS.

The appeal site lies less than 2 kilometres north of [site address] . Identified as a major [name] in Policy SP1 of the CS, it has a number of services and facilities to serve the rural community. [name] is located to the north west of the appeal site and has a village hall, church and a public house.

However, accessing either of these from the appeal site would require future occupiers to walk along the A358, a busy road subject to a 50mph speed limit, which lacks pavements and lighting. I saw that verges tended to be narrow and unkempt. Pedestrians would therefore be forced to walk in the road and for these reasons I find it unlikely that many would choose to make either of these journeys on foot. Cycling would be an alternative, but the busy nature of the road and lack of lighting would make it an unattractive option other than for very keen cyclists.

I saw that the restricted byway leading to [address] was unsurfaced, narrow and significantly enclosed by vegetation. [address] was a single track rural lane with high hedges and a lack of verges. This would not be a realistic alternative route to [site address] , on foot or by bicycle for many people, particularly for those less mobile or in the dark or inclement weather.

There are bus services which pass along the A358, but there is no substantive evidence before me that buses, other than for school transport, stop at [address]. The Council have directed my attention to a bus stop located on the A358 approximately 550 metres from the site. Given my observations above, this would also require pedestrians to walk in the road to reach the bus stop. This limits the likelihood of occupiers of the appeal site using this service regularly.

Opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that in this respect, I acknowledge that there would be opportunities available to future occupiers of the appeal site to access services and facilities by means other than the car and that the proximity of the appeal site to nearby services would limit the length of some journeys by car. However, for the reasons set out above, this would not be convenient or attractive for the majority of users or journeys, resulting in a reliance on the private car.

The proposed development would not adhere to the distribution of development policies of the development plan nor have good access to services and facilities. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies SP1, DM2 and CP8 of the CS and Policy SB1 of the Taunton Deane Site Allocations and Development Management Plan 2016 (SADMP) which seeks to strictly control development in the open countryside. The proposal would also conflict with Policies CP1 and CP6 of the CS and Policy A5 of the SADMP which seek to reduce the need to travel and encourage sustainable modes of transport.

The appeal site forms part of a cluster of existing dwellings, so it is not isolated. That said, Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) does not provide specific support for homes which are not isolated, rather it sets out the circumstances in which isolated homes would be acceptable.

I have been referred to an appeal elsewhere in Somerset1. In that instance, the appeal site was located within a rural settlement and a short walk from a number of 1 Appeal Ref: APP/E3335/W/25/3375377 [address], [address], Dinnington, Somerset [postcode] services and facilities, where development plan policy did not preclude residential development. Therefore, the circumstances in that appeal are not comparable with the appeal before me.

Prior approvals granted by the Council under Class Q2 on nearby sites, are not relevant to the proposal before me, as these are determined under different provisions.

Compliance with the national requirement to achieve biodiversity net gain and the lack of harm to protected species weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

The Council’s five-year housing land supply sits at 3.95 years which is below Government expectations. The appeal scheme would deliver a new dwelling which would make a very modest but nonetheless useful contribution towards housing supply at a time when the Council are failing to deliver sufficient housing. There would also be some social and economic benefits arising from the construction and occupation of the dwelling, including supporting services in nearby villages. However given the scale of the proposed development, these benefits attract only modest weight.

I have concluded that the proposal would conflict with development plan policies relating to location, and access to services and facilities. For these reasons, the harm identified in respect of the appeal proposal results in conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. The relevant policies are generally consistent with the Framework in terms of seeking to locate development close to services and facilities, reducing the need to travel. I therefore give the conflict with the development plan significant weight.

The shortfall in respect of the Council’s housing land supply means that Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is relevant. That said, the benefits that would arise would be modest.

It therefore follows that the harm I have identified significantly and demonstrably outweighs the modest benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

[name] been minded to allow the appeal, I would have needed to consider the effect of the proposal on the qualifying features of the [name] and Moors Ramsar. However, as the appeal is to be dismissed, I need not address this.

I have considered other matters raised by interested parties including, but not limited to, the effect on living conditions of existing residents, drainage, the effect on the character and appearance of the area and highway safety, but as the appeal has failed it would not alter the conclusion I have come to. 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no other considerations, including the Framework which outweigh this finding. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal has failed and planning permission is refused.