APPEAL BY: Thomas Homes
RE: Lane rear of 12, 14, 16 and 20 Shyshack Lane, Baughurst, Tadley
INSPECTORATE REF: APP/H1705/A/09/2102664/NWF
LOCAL AUTHORITY REF: BDB/69349
1 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE BOROUGH COUNCIL
SECTION 78 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)
INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/H1705/A/09/2102664/NWF
LOCAL AUTHORITY’S REFERENCE: BDB/69349
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT
Mr Lyzba c/o agent
NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENT
Thomas Homes
2 The Long Yard
Ermin Street
Shefford Woodlands
Hungerford
RG17 7EH
2 PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICATION
Proposal: Erection of 9 no. dwellings (2 no. four bedroom, 4 no. three bedroom and 3 no. two bedroom) following demolition of 20 Shyshack Lane with associated access, landscaping and diversion of public right of way
Location: Land rear of 12, 14, 16 and 20 Shyshack Lane, Baughurst, Tadley
3 CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Policy
3.0 Statement of Case
4.0 Other Matters
5.0 Conclusion
APPENDICES
1. Committee report (and update sheet) for appeal proposal
2. Suggested Conditions
3. Best Environmental Strategy for Transport
4. Supplementary Planning Guidance Note, 'Section 106 Planning Obligations and
Community Infrastructure', July 2004
5. HSE statement in respect of refusal reason Number 1 and consultation correspondence
6. Application ref. BDB/65937 and associated documents
7. Application ref. BDB/66717 and associated documents
8. Application ref. BDB/68516 and associated documents
9. Consultation response from Natural England and the Biodiversity Officer regarding
protected species
4 10. Statement from appeal ref. BDB/68516, which is relevant to refusal reason Number 2
11. Email from appellant’s agent in respect of refusal reason Number 2 and submission of
Unilateral Undertaking.
12. Circular 04/00 - 'Planning Controls for Hazardous Substances'
13. Appendix 7 of the council’s adopted Design and Sustainability SPD - ‘Places to Live’
September 2008
14. Letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 15th May 2009 in relation to protected species
15. Plan to show Detailed Emergency Planning Zones
16. Tadley Village Design Statement
17. Application ref. BDB/66882 and associated documents
5 1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Inspector’s attention is drawn to Appendix 1 of this document, which contains a full description of the appeal site and proposal; further details of the proposal can be seen at paragraph 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11.
1.2 The Appeal application was refused by the Local Planning Authority in May 2009 for the following reasons:
1. The application site is situated within the (0-3) km Detailed Emergency Planning Zone
DEPZ) surrounding the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). The use of
the DEPZ in this context, provides an area for development control consistent with the
zone defined originally for emergency planning purposes. The proposed development
would further contribute to a long term net positive increase in the extant residential
population density within the DEPZ. Such a situation would potentially increase the overall
risk to the public in the event of an off-site release of radioactive material following a
significant plant fault. Furthermore, the proposed development would adversely impact
upon the maintenance of a controlled low population zone around the AWE nuclear facility.
A controlled low population zone serves to both mitigate against the consequences of an
off-site release, and facilitates emergency preparedness which are key elements of the
defence-in-depth philosophy adopted by the nuclear community worldwide. As such the
proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policies E1 and D5 of the Basingstoke
and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, advice contained in Planning Policy Statement
6 23: Planning and Pollution Control and within Circular 04/00 - 'Planning Controls for
Hazardous Substances'.
2. In the absence of a secure legal agreement to secure a financial contribution, the
proposal would result in additional pressures upon open space, play areas/recreation,
playing fields, community facilities and the highway (Basingstoke Environmental Strategy
for Transport). The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies C1 and C9 of the
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, the Council's adopted
Supplementary Planning Guidance note 'Section 106 Planning Obligations and Community
Infrastructure' and the advice contained within Circular 05/2005.
3. The proposed dwellings by virtue of their bulk, size, scale, appearance, layout and form
would result in a cramped and confined form of development with limited space between
properties, detrimental to and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the
surrounding area. Th e proposed bin store area represents a poor design solution given its
prominence within the site. Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to Policies E1 (i)
and (ii) and E6 Iii) and (iv) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
2.0 Policy
2.1 The Statutory Development Plan for the area in which the appeal site is located comprises the South East Plan – May 2009 and the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local
Plan 1996-2011 (BDBLP).
7 2.2 Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires determinations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The
Development Plan is thus the starting point and it is necessary to assess whether the proposal is in accordance with the relevant policies of the Development Plan. If not, it is necessary to determine whether there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that the development should be approved.
Planning Policy Statement 1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) (PPS1)
2.3 Planning Policy Statement 1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) (PPS1) sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning all planning.
PPS1 advises at paragraph 27, that in order to deliver sustainable development, planning authorities should seek to, inter alia, “reduce the need to travel… and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges” (vii); and “promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings. Planning should actively seek to bring vacant and underused previously developed land and buildings back into beneficial use…”
(viii). Paragraph 23 (vii) also seeks to “ensure the provision of sufficient, good quality new homes (including an appropriate mix of housing and adequate levels of affordable housing) in
8 suitable locations,… to ensure that everybody has the opportunity of a decent home in locations that reduce the need to travel”.
2.4 PPS1 also advocates the importance of good design and states at paragraphs 33 and 34 that “good design ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development…Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.”
Planning Policy Statement 3, ‘Housing’ (PPS3)
2.5 Paragraphs 12-19 of PPS3 provide guidance in respect of the quality of housing, stating in summary, that development should achieve high standards of design, be well integrated with and complement the surrounding area in terms of scale, density etc. The guidance goes on to state that with imaginative design and layouts, new development can make efficient use of the land without compromising the character of the surrounding area.
Circular 05/2005
2.6 Annexe B of Government Circular 05/2005 provides guidance in respect of planning obligations for new development. This guidance states that planning obligations must be;
i. relevant to planning
9 ii. necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms iii. directly related to the proposed development iv. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development v. reasonable in all other respects.
Circular 04/00 – Planning controls for Hazardous Substances
2.7 HSE's role in the land use planning system is to provide local authorities with advice on the nature and severity of the risks presented by major hazards to people in the surrounding area so that those risks can be given due weight, when balanced against other relevant planning considerations, in making planning decisions. This role is recognised by the requirement at Article 10 of the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO) for HSE to be consulted on:
1. Proposed development involving the siting of new establishments where hazardous
substances may be present; or
2. Modifications to existing establishments which could have significant repercussions on
major accident hazards; or
3. Proposed development that is in the vicinity of existing hazardous installations and
pipelines where the siting is such as to increase the risk or consequences of a major
accident; or
4. Development within an area that has been notified to the local planning authority by the
Health and Safety Executive because of the presence of hazardous substances and which
involves residential accommodation, or more than 250 square metres of retail floor space,
10 or more than 500 metres of office floor space, or more than 750 metres of floor space to be
used for an industrial purpose or which otherwise is likely to result in a material increase in
the number of people working within or visiting the notified area.
2.8 Paragraph A5 of Annex A of the above document states that ‘In view of their acknowledged expertise in assessing the off-site risks presented by the use of hazardous substances, any advice from HSE that planning permission should be refused for development for, at or near to a hazardous installation or pipeline, or that hazardous substances consent should be refused, should not be overridden without the most careful consideration. Where a local planning or hazardous substances authority is minded to grant planning permission or hazardous substances consent against HSE's advice, it should give
HSE advance notice of that intention, and allow 21 days from that notice for HSE to give further consideration to the matter. During that period, HSE will consider whether or not to request the Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions to call-in the application for his own determination’.
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011
2.9 The Borough Council placed its 'Notice of Intention to Adopt' the Local Plan on
Monday 19 June 2006 and placed its 'Notice of Adoption' on 17 July 2006, after which time the plan is considered to be officially adopted. The following policies from this adopted document are therefore relevant to the appeal:
E1 – Development Control
11 E6 - Landscape Character
D5 – Residential and Other Development Within Settlements
C1 - Section 106 Contributions
C9 - New Leisure Facilities or Open Spaces
(a more detailed summary of these policies can be viewed at Appendix 1 within the
Committee Report).
Appendix 7 of the council’s Design and Sustainability SPD - ‘Places to Live’ September 2008
2.10 This document was adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document in September
2008 and provides guidance regarding new residential development; a copy of this document is attached at Appendix 13 for information. Paragraph 4.3.1 of this guidance states that ‘a site must have consideration towards the character of the local area (see 2.1.7). The built context should be reflected in some way within a new development. Ensuring that these local built contextual characteristics are reconsidered in new development improves orientation between places, and helps foster a sense of local identity’. This guidance is relevant to the consideration of this appeal.
Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 'Section 106 Planning Obligations and Community
Infrastructure', July 2004
2.11 This document provides information in respect of planning obligations and outlines the Council's approach to requesting financial contributions in respect of new development. A full copy of this document can be viewed at Appendix 4.
12 2.12 Tadley Village Design Statement (attached at Appendix 16) is also relevant to this appeal. On page 7 of this document it states that Shyshack Lane retains many older hedgerows and a number of small cottages, built of local materials, and are interspersed with individual houses and bungalows of later design. Design guidance on page 13 is also of relevance.
13 3.0 Statement of Case
Refusal Reason Number 1
1. Th e application site is situated within the (0-3) km Detailed Emergency Planning Zone
(DEPZ) surrounding the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). The use of
the DEPZ in this context, provides an area for development control consistent with the
zone defined originally for emergency planning purposes. The proposed development
would further contribute to a long term net positive increase in the extant residential
population density within the DEPZ. Such a situation would potentially increase the overall
risk to the public in the event of an off-site release of radioactive material following a
significant plant fault. Furthermore, the proposed development would adversely impact
upon the maintenance of a controlled low population zone around the AWE nuclear
facility. A controlled low population zone serves to both mitigate against the consequences
of an off-site release, and facilitates emergency preparedness which are key elements of
the defence-in-depth philosophy adopted by the nuclear community worldwide. As such
the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policies E1 and D5 of the
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, advice contained in Planning
Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control and within Circular 04/00 - 'Planning
Controls for Hazardous Substances'.
3.1 Developments proposed up to and within 8km of the AWE Aldermaston site are subject to consultation with the HSE due to their proximity to a Hazardous Installation (under the HSE's Planning Advice for Development near Hazardous Installations or PADHI
14 regulations). The 8km distance is separated into inner, middle and outer zones, which can be viewed at Appendix 15. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council consults with the HSE in accordance with the following procedure:
Health and Safety Development within the Detailed Emergency Executive (who consults Planning Zone (DEPZ) with the Nuclear Zone Distance Development type Installations Inner 0 -3 km All residential or non Inspectorate) residential - Where one or more additional person may live. Work, shop (all applications save listed buildings, conservation area consent, house extensions, shop fronts, prior notifications and telecommunications). Middle 3 – 5km Residential accommodation or non residential accommodation exceeding 50 people. · 20 or more dwellings; · 1000m2 , B1 · 2,400m2 B8 Outer 5 – 8 km Residential accommodation and non residential exceeding 500 people · 200 or more dwellings; · 11,000m2 , B1 · 24,000m2 B8
3.2 The application site is situated within 0-3Km of the Detailed Emergency Planning
Zone (DEPZ) surrounding the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and, planning advice for developments near Hazardous Installations (under PADHI regulations) requires the Council to consult with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The Health and
Safety Executive has responded to ‘advise against’ the proposed development, on the
15 grounds of nuclear safety and the protection for the public as there would be an increase in the number of dwellings (and residents) as a result of this proposal. This advice has been informed by way of thorough examination of existing population density and consideration of the capacity of the existing Off Site Emergency Plan (a document that West Berkshire and other Emergency Planning Officers are responsible for).
3.3 As previously noted, this application was not determined in the 8 week timescale because of the outstanding issues with the HSE. The applicant’s decision to appeal on non- determination, prior to the Council’s full understanding of the HSE’s concerns, has put it in a position where a decision, on what the council would have determined, needed to be made.
Given the discussions to date with the HSE, officers recommended to Development Control
Committee that one of the refusal reasons would have been in relation to this issue had the council determined the application.
3.4 The appellant states that the Council was previously notified by the HSE of the need for revised consultation arrangements prior to the determination of the last planning applications on this site to include the Council’s approval of BDB66717 which presents a material consideration for the determination of this case. Officers consider that it would not have been appropriate to determine the planning application without due regard to the concerns raised by the HSE, which are a material planning consideration. The approval of the planning application would result in a further increase in population above that which would be created by BDB/66717. The previous planning application (BDB/66717) gave approval for the erection of 6 dwellings comprising 4 no. four bedroom and 2. no two bedroom
16 dwellings amounting to a likely occupancy of 15.4 people, compared to the current proposal for 9 dwellings comprising 2 no. four bedroom, 4 no. three bedroom and 3 no. two bedroom, amounting to a likely occupancy of 20.3 people. This likely occupancy figure is based on the application of average occupancy for certain types of dwellings and is used by the council to calculate the impacts of proposed developments on likely services, for example as the need for additional open space provision etc. The numbers are taken from Appendix A of the
Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note, 'Section 106 Planning Obligations and
Community Infrastructure', July 2004, which is attached at Appendix 4.
Likely occupancy is based on:
1 bed = 1.5 persons
2 bed = 1.7 persons
3 bed = 2.3 persons
4 bed = 3 persons
3.5 The HSE has provided a statement which is attached at Appendix 5 together with their original consultation response dated 16th September 2008 which ‘advises against’ the application. These documents set out the position of HSE in this regard and demonstrate why the application should not be permitted.
3.6 Refusal Reason Number 2
2. In the absence of a secure legal agreement to secure a financial contribution, the proposal would result in additional pressures upon open space, play areas/recreation, playing fields,
17 community facilities and the highway (Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport).
The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies C1 and C9 of the Basingstoke and
Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning
Guidance note 'Section 106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure' and the advice contained within Circular 05/2005.
For information the following financial contributions have been identified;
• Open space - £4760
• Play areas/recreation - £7799
• Playing fields - £3,865.12
• Community Facilities - £9642.50
• BEST (highways) - £ 33,384
3.7 The Inspector’s attention is drawn to Appendix 11 which contains an email from the appellant’s agent to confirm that a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) will be submitted to address this refusal reason (a draft UU has just been received by the council and is being considered
– comments in this regard will be sent to the Inspectorate in due course). On the basis that a
UU will be forthcoming, information in respect of this refusal reason will not be submitted, however the Inspector’s attention is drawn to the document at Appendix 10, part of the appeal statement for BDB/68516, which set out the council’s assessment as to why contributions (albeit of a different amount) were justified. Given that the same justification is applicable in respect of this current scheme this, in the absence of a completed UU, would be applicable to this appeal. The documents attached at Appendix 3 and 4 are relevant in this respect.
18 3.8 Refusal Reason Number 3
3. The proposed dwellings by virtue of their bulk, size, scale, appearance, layout and form would result in a cramped and confined form of development with limited space between properties, detrimental to and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed bin store area represents a poor design solution given its prominence within the site. Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to Policies E1 (i) and
(ii) and E6 Iii) and (iv) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
3.9 The appeal proposal constitutes a residential development of nine dwellings within
Shyshack Lane, Tadley. The development proposes a new access within the site and a pair of semi-detached, three bedroom dwellings would be located to the east of this new access
(in place of Number 18/20 Shyshack Lane), some 5m back from the front of the site. These properties have been designed to have the appearance and form of a single dwelling house with gables in the front and rear elevations and a ridge height of 8.1m.
3.10 The other seven dwellings would be arranged towards the rear of the site (in a rear tier) facing towards Shyshack Lane with a parking and turning area in the middle. Th ese dwellings would be of a similar form and character to the frontage properties with two storey hipped roofs and gable features and ridge heights of 8.1m. On the eastern edge of the site there would be a pair of semi-detached dwellings, inset 1m from the redirected footpath.
There would then be a block of three terraced properties occupying the centre of the site and
19 on the western side of the plot, there would be a pair of detached four-bedroom houses. Th e gaps between plots 4 and 5 would measure approximately 2.6 metres, between plots 7 and 8 approximately 2.36 metres and between plots 8 and 9 approximately 1 metre.
3.11 The properties at the rear of the site would have 10m-long gardens and plots 1 and
2 (at the front of the site) would have 9.2m-long gardens. The parking and turning area would be surfaced with bound gravel with a tarmac area at the front. It has been specifically designed not to be adopted, and would have a width of 3.7m-4.1m for shared use by pedestrians and vehicles. These areas would be interspersed by grass and minor planting.
There would also be a communal refuse collection point adjacent to the access. The public right of way would be re-sited to run along the eastern boundary, adjacent to the No 22's garden.
3.12 There is quite an extensive history to this site, which is documented in detail within the Committee report attached at Appendix 1. The most relevant history to this appeal is deemed to be BDB/68516, a scheme for 9 units which was refused permission and subsequently dismissed at appeal in November 2008; full details (to include the Inspector’s decision) can be viewed at Appendix 8.
3.13 This previous application ref. BDB/68516 was refused solely on grounds of character as the council had concerns that the development would appear unduly cramped and confined to the detriment of the surrounding area. The Inspector agreed with the council’s decision to refuse planning permission and dismissed the appeal stating that ‘minimal spaces
20 between the dwellings in the present scheme would not provide any meaningful visual relief within the overall composition of building mass. The houses would appear tightly arranged and somewhat regimented, contrasting unfavourably with the more spacious and less formal groupings of other development in Shyshack Lane’. Th e Inspector concluded in respect of
BDB/68516 that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area as the development would have been inappropriate in context of the surrounding area.
3.14 The development proposed under BDB/68516 had separation distances of 0.8 of a metre (between plots 8 and 9), 1.2 metres (between plots 7 and 8) and 1.1 metre (between plots 4 and 5). The elevational treatment in respect of this scheme was also different to that proposed under the appeal scheme as the dwellings had full gable ends. Whilst it is acknowledged that the gaps between plots have been increased in comparison to those proposed under BDB/68516, the increase is not significant to make a material difference to the layout as a whole and in fact the increased gaps proposed would barely be readable within the street scene.
3.15 Furthermore, the minimal gaps between the properties to the rear of the site would not be perceivable from Shyshack Lane itself and would only become apparent on entering the proposed access road. As such, from Shyshack Lane you would only see the bulk and scale of plots 5-7 and the gaps would not help to mitigate this impact at all. Given the more spacious arrangement of properties along Shyshack Lane, the proposed development would appear out of character with the surrounding area.
21 3.16 Whilst the dwellings proposed as part of the appeal scheme have fully hipped roofs which does represent a slight improvement in comparison to the dwellings proposed under
BDB/68516, this elevational change would not help to mitigate the visual impact of the proposal given that the gaps between properties is only slightly different. The dwellings would still be full two storeys in height and the hipping of the roofs would not be sufficient to provide any meaningful visual relief between properties. Overall the form, unduly regimented layout, scale, bulk, size and lack of space between properties is deemed to be uncharacteristic and out of context with surrounding development.
3.17 Whilst it is acknowledged that there is an extant permission for the development of 6 dwellings (under BDB/66717 – see Appendix 7), the appeal scheme is significantly different to that previously permitted. The scheme under BDB/66717 achieves a much more spacious and high quality feel as the properties proposed are varied in terms of their form, which helps to create more space within the development; furthermore the existence of single storey garages to the side of the properties also adds to the spaciousness of the development. Th is extant consent would not therefore justify the approval of this inappropriate appeal scheme.
3.18 The compactness of the proposed dwellings in this locality proposed under this appeal precludes the achievement of an appropriate character within the site and is considered a major flaw in the design of the proposal. The resulting development would be in stark contrast to the existing open nature of the surrounding area, which comprises a variety of dwellings of much less regimented and informal design. The appeal proposal would appear unduly cramped, congested and unduly urban completely at odds with the prevailing character of Shyshack Lane. Furthermore the extent of hard surfacing proposed to the rear of
22 the site would only emphasise how cramped the layout appears; there is limited space for landscaping within the development itself which would make the proposal appear more stark in comparison to the surrounding area. Accordingly the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
3.19 It is acknowledged that Shyshack Lane does have a mixed character of plot sizes and dwelling sizes, however this particular part of Shyshack Lane maintains an attractive, spacious character that would be radically changed as a result of the development. Whilst it is accepted that the most efficient use should be made of land and that within the settlement boundary some development will take place, such development should not be at the expense of the character of the area and at the expense of a high quality appropriate design that reflects and is in context with the character of the area. It is considered that the appeal site is in a position and is of a sufficiently large size that it should be possible to avoid the suburban character created by the internal layout and design.
3.20 Whilst there are some larger, more modern properties within Shyshack Lane, some of these are examples of poor development that the Local Planning Authority would not wish to replicate.
3.21 The proposed bin store would be located in close proximity to Shyshack Lane in a highly prominent location within the street scene. The siting of a bin store in this location is deemed to be a poor design solution and would lead to an unacceptable level of urban clutter
23 within the street scene when the bins are left ready for collection. This would be entirely uncharacteristic of Shyshack Lane which is characterised typically by individual dwellings with their own private frontages; communal bin stores of this scale and location are not a feature of the area and the proposal would appear unduly urban in form as a result of this element of the layout.
3.22 Refusal of the application draws on design policies and guidance which seek to ensure local distinctiveness. Paragraph 18 of PPS1 refers to improving the local environment through positive policies on design issues. The Council's appendix 7 of the Design and
Sustainability Document Places to Live is considered to contain robust guidance on design
(contained at Appendix 13) and it's intention is to accord with the key objectives for design.
Those key objectives set out (of particular relevance for the development of the appeal site) are to respond to their local context and create or reinforce local distinctiveness and to be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. It is the
Council’s case that local context and distinctiveness is not respected by virtue of the inappropriate form, scale, bulk and design of the proposal.
3.23 Overall PPS1 promotes high quality design (paragraphs 13iv, 27ii and 34). A key principle in paragraph 13 (iv) is that planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments over the lifetime of the development. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. (This statement is also repeated in paragraph 34). It is the Council’s
24 case that the development fails to improve the character and quality of the area by being insufficiently respectful of the surrounding character by virtue of the lack of space between dwellings, extent of hard surfacing, limited space for landscaping and form of dwellings. The reference to promoting high quality design over the lifetime of the development justifies the
Council’s case for more substantial landscaping which over time will mature and contribute towards the local character.
3.24 Paragraph 35 of PPS1 makes it clear that high quality and inclusive design goes far beyond aesthetic considerations. It includes being integrated into the urban form and the natural and built environments and being an integral part of the processes for ensuring successful and inclusive villages. The failure to produce a suitable design for the appeal site which properly integrates dilutes the identity and sense of place and conflicts with these wider purposes of good design. It is not sufficient to have suitable landscaping on the boundaries of the appeal site alone. The development must also have suitable internal landscaping to ensure that the development as a whole contributes towards the local context of the area.
3.25 In the wider context of PPS3, good design is regarded as fundamental to the development of high quality housing (para 12) and that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people (para 13). PPS3 is consistent with PPS1 in that
Local Planning Authorities should develop a shared vision with their local communities of the type of residential environments they wish to see and develop design policies that set out the
25 quality of development that will be expected for the local area aimed at creating places that are visually attractive and maintain and improve local character (para 14 of PPS3).
3.26 Paragraph 13 makes it clear that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. In light of the above it is considered that the refusal of the application on this basis is entirely justified as it would fail to comply with the requirements of
Local and National Policy.
3.27 The Inspector's attention is drawn to the appeal decision in relation to BDB/66882, a residential scheme for 13 dwellings at 1, 3, 5, 9 and rear of 7 Shyshack Lane, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 17. This appeal decision, whilst relating to a different site is in close proximity and, although raising other non relevant issues focuses on matters such as character and form, layout etc and is therefore of direct relevance to this appeal.
4.0 Other Matters
4.1 As attached at Appendix 14, the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) requested further information from the council regarding protected species as PINS understood that this material consideration was unresolved. However, as attached at Appendix 9, Natural
England and the council’s Biodiversity Officer are satisfied that there are no outstanding issues regarding protected species and recommended conditional permission in respect of
26 the application. As such this matter would not have formed a refusal reason had the council been in a position to determine the application.
5.0 Conclusion
5.1 The Local Planning Authority has demonstrated that the proposal would fail to comply with relevant Development Plan policies. The Local Planning Authority is not aware of any material planning considerations that are of significant weight to override planning policy in this case. Accordingly it is respectfully requested that the appeal is dismissed. If however, the Inspector is minded to allow the appeal, it is requested that the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 2 be attached to the grant of any planning permission. These conditions are suggested without prejudice.
27