Appeal Decision Hearing held on 29 July 2014 Site visit made on 29 July 2014 by David Nicholson RIBA IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 22 September 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/D0121/A/14/2213634 Blackrock Villas, Road, Portishead, BS20 8PN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Mario Ellis against the decision of North Council. • The application Ref 13/P/0483/F, dated 9 March 2013, was refused by notice dated 8 August 2013. • The development proposed is a zero-carbon four bedroom subterranean dwelling.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed .

Applications for costs

2. Applications for costs were made at the Hearing, first by Council against Mr Mario Ellis, and then by Mr Mario Ellis against North Somerset Council. These applications are the subject of separate Decisions.

Procedural matter

1 3. The recent High Court Judgment in Redhill found that the planning balance to be struck for proposals within the Green Belt should concern any other harm to the Green Belt and not any other harm from other matters, as was previously the case. I have reached my Decision on this basis.

Main Issues

4. The main issues are whether the proposed dwelling would: (a) amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, if so, whether very special circumstances exist to clearly outweigh this and any other harm to the Green Belt; (b) amount to sustainable development;

and the effects of the proposal on: (c) the character and appearance of the area; (d) highway safety, and; (e) trees.

1 Redhill Aerodrome Ltd v SSCLG, Tandridge District Council, Reigate and Banstead Borough Council [2014] EWHC 2476 (Admin) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/D0121/A/14/2213634

Reasons

5. The appeal site lies within the South West Green Belt. Paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt which, by definition, includes inappropriate development , and states that such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances . With a limited number of exceptions (paragraph 89), the NPPF regards the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

6. Policy CS6 of the North Somerset Council Core Strategy (CS), adopted in April 2012, and saved policy RD/3 in the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (LP) 2007, also set strong presumptions against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and detail similar exceptions to those cited in the NPPF. While the CS has been remitted following a High Court ruling, and in due course this could theoretically alter the Green Belt boundary, no such change has yet taken place.

7. The appeal site is currently scrubland with direct access from the road. It lies around 0.5km from Weston-in-Gordano and was probably last used for agriculture or as allotments. The proposed house would be designed to meet level 6 of the Code for sustainable development, so that its net carbon production would be zero. To achieve this it would: be built underground, to maximise thermal mass and reduce heat loss/gain; have windows and solar panels facing roughly south, and; utilise the latest technologies with regard to insulation, heat exchange, a ground source heat pump, water harvesting and sewage treatment. Most of the site would be planted as a wild flower meadow including a green roof. The scheme would provide off-street parking for four cars.

8. At the Hearing, the appellant acknowledged that the proposed house would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined by the NPPF. Rather, the particulars of the proposed house were put forward as very special circumstances . These would include all its sustainable criteria and that, subject to details, it would be designed to an exceptionally high standard, being comparable with a house which was permitted within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, although not in a Green Belt (Document 3). Being underground, and by changing scrubland into wild flower meadow, the scheme would enhance the openness of the Green Belt. As it would not be visible it would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Finally, the appellant argued that its design would encourage sustainability elsewhere.

Sustainability

9. The appellant has also claimed that the house would be sustainable and referred to paragraph 55 of the NPPF. This states that: To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. … Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: … ● the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should:

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/D0121/A/14/2213634

– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; – reflect the highest standards in architecture; – significantly enhance its immediate setting; and – be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

10. I accept that, subject to conditions and further details, the design could be to a high standard and that its sustainable features would contribute towards the aims of achieving zero carbon targets. Both these matters weigh in favour of the development. On the other hand, while some of the features are still relatively unusual in , none of them would be particularly unique, the technologies referred to have been around for a number of years, and the design is based on another house. While the building could produce zero carbon over its lifetime, and some materials could be locally sourced and use carbon offsetting, the substantial amount of embodied energy required to excavate and lay the foundations would be much greater than for an above ground house, whether built to Code level 6 or otherwise, and probably take many years to offset. On this point I find that the design would be neither exceptional nor innovative.

11. More importantly, the house would be at some distance from any shops or services. The design anticipates up to four cars being used by future residents and visitors. When raised at the Hearing, the appellant agreed that electric cars could be used. However, neither calculations for the increased area of solar panels, nor their impact on the design, have been put forward, and there is no mechanism before me to ensure that future occupiers would only use electric cars. There is no suggestion that visitors, deliveries or other services to the site would travel to the house by sustainable means, or that its location would contribute to the vitality of the local community.

12. For all these reasons, I find that the house would be likely to foster the use of the private car and additional journey lengths by unsustainable forms of transport. In the absence of further details with regard to travel, I conclude on balance that the proposal would do little to support a move to a low carbon economy. The scheme would therefore conflict with the aim of paragraph 55 to the NPPF, and would be similarly contrary to CS policies CS1, CS14, CS33 and LP policy H/8.

Character and appearance

13. Clevedon Road has an essentially rural character although there is a cluster of houses near the appeal site. It is disused and overgrown but not unattractive in its setting. I acknowledge that an underground dwelling would have less impact on this country road than a more conventional house. I accept that the house itself would follow a competent design that could sit reasonably well in the landscape and would no doubt be comfortable to occupy.

14. On the other hand, the change of use to a dwelling would probably bring with it cars, washing lines, children’s play equipment and visibility splays not all of which could be fully concealed underground. Although I give some weight to the potential benefit of a wild flower meadow, this would be difficult to enforce in the future for a single house with no ongoing management plan. On this issue I find, on balance, that the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to CS policy CS5 which seeks to protect the North Somerset landscape.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/D0121/A/14/2213634

Highway safety

15. The appeal site fronts onto the B3124, from Clevedon to Portishead, which I saw was relatively busy with a speed limit of 50 mph. Visibility at the access is currently poor but could be improved by cutting back hedges. The appellant argued that this could be done within the highway verge but local residents suggested that the land ownership would prevent it. However, conditions could be applied requiring visibility to be established before any development could take place which would therefore overcome these concerns.

16. Subject to the hedges being cut back, and improved visibility being maintained thereafter, I find that any increased risk to highway safety would be marginal and should not prevent development. I also note that this was the latest view of the highway authority (Document 2). On this issue I find that the scheme would not substantially prejudice highway safety or result in a severe impact and so would comply with LP policy T/10 and with paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

Trees

17. The proposed layout would result in the loss of some trees and the appellant has only submitted a limited survey of the existing trees. However, I saw that most of the mature trees were around the perimeter of the site and that the few in the middle were not exceptional varieties or specimens. Subject to conditions to control protection, and any necessary enhancement, I find on this point that the loss of some trees alone should not lead to any overall harm to the appearance of the area, or conflict with CS policies CS4, CS5 or CS9 which seek to protect trees, landscapes and green infrastructure.

Conclusions

18. As above, the scheme would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Furthermore, on account of its location, the proposal would not constitute sustainable development but would harm the character and appearance of the countryside. The potential benefits of the scheme are not particularly new, and are not matters which could only apply on this site, and so I do not consider them to be very special . The scheme would not satisfy the criteria in NPPF paragraph 55. Moreover, if I allowed the appeal it might well be argued that it set a precedent for similar schemes anywhere in this, and any other, Green Belt. The lack of harm with regard to some other issues does not weigh in its favour.

19. For these reasons, the benefits of the scheme would not amount to very special circumstances and would not outweigh, let alone clearly outweigh, the harm to the Green Belt by reason of being inappropriate development. The scheme would therefore conflict with CS Policy CS6, LP Policy RD/3 and with the NPPF. Even if I had followed the interpretation prior to Redhill , and struck the balance against both Green Belt and non-Green Belt harm, I would have reached the same conclusion.

20. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including extensions permitted nearby, ecology and potential flooding, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. David Nicholson

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/D0121/A/14/2213634

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Richard Winsor Winsor & Leaman architects Malcolm Jones Hawthorn transport planning Hugh Rettie Winsor & Leaman architects Jennifer Davis Winsor & Leaman architects

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Tom French North Somerset Council Judith Porter North Somerset Council

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mike Roberts Local resident Catherine Dixon Local resident Dennis Jones Local resident

DOCUMENTS

1 Letters from interested parties 2 Memorandum with regard to Highway considerations 3 Details of Underhill house in 4 Habitat Map 5 Post-Hearing correspondence following Redhill

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5