Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 the Square Site Visit Made on 9 November 2009 Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Site visit made on 9 November 2009 Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

0117 372 6372 by Keith Manning BSc (Hons) BTP MRTPI email:[email protected] ov.uk an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: for Communities and Local Government 9 December 2009

Appeal Ref: APP/B3410/A/09/2109546 Parkside, 73 Stone Road, Uttoxeter, Staffordshire ST14 7QP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr H & Mrs J Williams against the decision of East Staffordshire Borough Council. • The application Ref OU/15701/008/AG/PO, dated 1 May 2009, was refused by notice dated 23 June 2009. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing dwelling house and residential development with site access.

Application for costs

1. An application for costs was made by Mr H & Mrs J Williams against East Staffordshire Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters

2. The application is in outline with all matters reserved except for access.

3. A unilateral undertaking dated 28 September 2009 has been completed obliging the owners of the site, as defined, to pay the County Council a sum of money in respect of education provision in the area.

Decision

4. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for the demolition of existing dwelling house and residential development with site access at Parkside, 73 Stone Road, Uttoxeter, Staffordshire ST14 7QP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref OU/15701/008/AG/PO, dated 1 May 2009, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in Annex A hereto:

Main issues

5. I consider the main issues to be:

• The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the scale and density of the existing housing and the street scene of Stone Road; and

• The effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

Appeal Decision APP/B3410/A/09/2109546

Reasons

6. The appeal site is previously-developed land within the Uttoxeter development boundary. Its surroundings are residential in character and the Council does not contest the principle of redeveloping the existing dwelling and the land within its curtilage.

7. Stone Road is characterised by a variety of properties, including terraced houses close to the road and detached dwellings, the latter including the appeal site and The Mount, its neighbour to the north. The site is opposite the junction with New Street and its southern boundary coincides with Colne Mount, a street that gives access to a small terrace of houses behind and broadly speaking at right angles to the terrace of houses fronting Stone Road immediately to the south. The properties in New Street are predominantly terraced and close to the pavement, whereas those north of the junction are mainly semi-detached and detached houses with front gardens.

8. Owing to its location, the appeal site is at a point of transition between a densely developed and enclosed urban environment and a less dense area that is rather more suburban in character, albeit characterised by substantial boundary definition and the presence at the back of pavement of The Mount, features that tend to prolong the sense of enclosure experienced in Stone Road in the vicinity of its junction with New Street. That sense of enclosure away from the terraced housing is heightened by the position and maturity of trees associated with certain of the larger properties including some on the frontage of the appeal site. The front garden of the appeal site, although substantial, gives the visual impression of being rather enclosed and secluded owing to the existing wall and hedge, but it is a visually significant front garden nonetheless.

9. PPS3 Housing states clearly that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form. In any event, I consider, in view of the circumstances of the site at the point of transition between residential environments of differing character, that there is a genuine choice to be made between equally valid responses to the design objective set out in PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development of achieving design that is appropriate in context. Essentially, that choice is between increasing the sense of enclosure currently experienced, the response implicit in the material supporting the outline planning application subject to this appeal, and the retention of a more open frontage, the response that the Council states it would prefer.

10. To my mind, given the circumstances of the site, either approach could be successfully deployed as the change between the high density housing to the south and the lower density housing to the north is simply a reflection of the manner in which development has occurred but without any strong design rationale derived from the form and function of the urban area or the topography or any notable historic or architectural influence.

11. Bearing in mind the national policy context provided by PPS3 the key question, therefore, is whether the appellants’ preference would in practice be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, the street scene in particular, so as to conflict with the intentions of the development plan as the Council maintains that it does: In addressing that question, it must also be borne in mind that

2 Appeal Decision APP/B3410/A/09/2109546

this is an outline application and that appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale are reserved for subsequent approval. Nevertheless, up to 8 houses are proposed and bearing in mind the indicative layout provided, it must also be assumed that a development which includes a terrace of houses closely fronting Stone Road would be subsequently worked up in detail at reserved matters stage on the basis that the indicated approach was, in principle, considered to be acceptable. Circular 01/2006 states that a basic level of information on layout, even if reserved, is required.

12. Policy regarding the main issue cited by the Council includes saved policies BE1 and H6 of the East Staffordshire Local Plan, saved policy D2 of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan and policies QE1 and QE3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The relevant intentions of those policies essentially concern the maintenance and promotion of environmental quality and the achievement of design appropriate to its context. At national level such intentions are emphasised in PPS1 and the Council’s East Staffordshire Design Guide provides more specific guidance, again emphasising context.

13. Given my conclusion that the physical circumstances of the site and its context within the street scene allow for a choice in terms of design strategy and the considered fashion in which, as the Design and Access Statement explains, the choice concerning layout has been arrived at through a series of iterations informed by context, I see no reason in principle why housing development of the type indicated should not make a positive contribution to the street scene of Stone Road and, bearing in mind the existing layout to the south, the character and appearance of the area more generally. Therefore, notwithstanding that the proposed development would be more prominent in the street scene than the existing dwelling, owing to the proximity of the terrace, as indicated, to Stone Road, I consider that the proposed development would accord with the relevant policy and guidance referred to.

14. Highway safety is not an issue raised by the Council. However, the narrowness of the pavements, the volume of vehicular traffic at certain times, together with that of pedestrians including schoolchildren, and recent accidents in the vicinity all serve to promote a clearly articulated sense of unease amongst third parties that existing problems would be exacerbated and I understand that there is pressure for and investigation of traffic calming measures. Be that as it may, the specific form of access proposed at the position shown follows detailed investigations of current average speeds in free flow traffic conditions and the achievability of adequate visibility splays as allowed for by Manual for Streets . Consequently, there is no objection from the highway authority.

15. I have examined carefully the proposed access and the highway conditions, allowing for the factors that have been mentioned as creating problems at certain times of the day. It seems to me inevitable that the road must experience problems at certain times because it is relatively narrow, it functions as a significant thoroughfare for both vehicles and pedestrians and the pavements are not particularly commodious. Whether or not traffic calming is required is not a matter for me, but that would be directed at a situation as it now exists. In view of that situation, and the limited number of houses proposed, however, I consider the small volume of traffic generated by the proposed development would not materially exacerbate any existing problems because the effect would, in practice, be of marginal significance.

3 Appeal Decision APP/B3410/A/09/2109546

16. PPG13 Transport promotes safety for all road users as a general principle. However, bearing in mind that at times of congestion vehicle speeds are likely to be lower than under free flow conditions and the highway authority’s confirmation of the acceptability of the proposed junction geometry, I do not consider that highway safety would be significantly compromised so as to create undue conflict with such policy intentions in that regard and thereby justify refusal.

17. Third parties raise other matters that are potentially material, notably the potential effect on wildlife, including bats, and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. As far as the latter are concerned the indicative layout allows for adequate separation, supported by boundary and landscape treatment as appropriate, between the proposed houses and those on Colne Mount. Similarly, an acceptable relationship to The Mount and the school and community room to the west can readily be achieved. Although third parties suggest that certain trees within the site may provide roosting opportunities for bats, I have no authoritative evidence that is so and, on the basis of the bat survey submitted, it appears that such potential is largely confined to trees on and beyond the periphery of the site and especially the adjacent copse associated with The Picknalls First School. On the basis of the survey, Natural England has confirmed that it has no objection to the proposed development, albeit pointing out that the developer would need to observe the law concerning protected species in any event. The copse would continue to function as a wildlife habitat and educational resource.

18. Although many third parties are opposed to the principle of developing the site, especially in relation to the highways issue, their concerns also encompass many matters that can be addressed by the imposition of planning conditions. The Council’s suggestions in that respect are for the most part necessary and appropriate, subject to minor amendment so as to accord more closely with the intentions of Circular 11/95 and in some instances combination for economy. The suggested condition 5) is appropriately strengthened in effect according to the model suggested in the Circular regarding the identification and protection of trees to be retained as part of the landscaping to be approved. The Circular emphasises that permitted development rights should only be suspended exceptionally and with good reason. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient justification in this instance to comprehensively do so as the Council suggests.

19. For the reasons given above, and having taken all other matters raised into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Keith Manning

Inspector

4 Appeal Decision APP/B3410/A/09/2109546

Annex A: Schedule of Conditions 1) Details of the, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied or in accordance with a programme otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 6) The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with the condition 1) above shall include: i) a plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, each existing tree on the site which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75 mm, showing which trees are to be retained and the crown spread of each retained tree; ii) details of the species, diameter (measured in accordance with paragraph (i) above), and the approximate height, and an assessment of the general state of health and stability, of each retained tree and of each tree which is on land adjacent to the site and to which paragraphs (iii) and (iv) below apply; iii) details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree, or of any tree on land adjacent to the site; iv) details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels, and of the position of any proposed excavation, within the crown spread of any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the site; v) details of the specification and position of fencing and of any other measures to be taken for the protection of any retained tree from damage before or during the course of development. vi) In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the plan referred to in paragraph (i) above.

5 Appeal Decision APP/B3410/A/09/2109546

7) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the details of landscaping and boundary treatment approved pursuant to conditions 1) and 5) above shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the buildings hereby approved or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or plant that tree or plant, or any replacement thereof, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written approval to any variation. 8) No development shall take place until a scheme for foul and surface water drainage and the construction and drainage details for roads within the site, including longitudinal sections, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall incorporate sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before it is first occupied. 9) Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the existing site access made redundant as a consequence of the development shall be permanently closed and the access crossing reinstated as verge/footway in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 10) Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved the access shall be designed and thereafter completed to a standard that provides a domestic dropped crossing access location in the position shown on the approved plans and that provides a minimum width of 4.2 metres for the first 6 metres rear of the highway boundary. 11) Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved visibility splays of 2m X 43m as shown on the approved plans shall be provided and thereafter retained free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 600mm above the adjacent carriageway level. 12) If during the course of construction contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority) shall be carried out until a method statement detailing how and when the contamination is to be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The contamination shall then be dealt with in accordance with the approved details. 13) Notwithstanding the general upper height limit referred to in the submitted Design and Access Statement, the scale of the development to be approved as a reserved matter shall include a precise height for each individual dwelling. * * *