Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision Gwrandawiad a gynhaliwyd ar 12/05/15 Hearing held on 12/05/15 Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 12/05/15 Site visit made on 12/05/15 gan Mr A Thickett BA(Hons) BTP by Mr A Thickett BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI MRTPI DipRSA DipRSA Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 04 Mehefin 2015 Date: 04 June 2015 Appeal Ref: APP/Z6815/A/14/2229933 Site address: Land to the north of Bridge Road, Old St Mellons, Cardiff The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector. 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 Edenstone Homes & Mrs Sylvia Cooper against the decision of Cardiff Council. The application Ref 14/01434/DCO, dated 16 June 2014, was refused by notice dated 13 November 2014. The development proposed is residential development (15 units) and associated works (including landscaping, access and highway works). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposed development conflicts with national and local policies designed to protect the countryside and promote sustainable development. Reasons Countryside 3. The appeal site comprises part rough scrubland and part paddock bounded to the south and east by Bridge Road and the rear gardens of properties on Bridge Road and Tyr Winch Road. Immediately to the west is a large open field. The site adjoins but lies outside the settlement boundary as defined in the City of Cardiff Local Plan 1996 and the emerging Local Development Plan (LDP). Policy 5 of the Local Plan states that the countryside, including the urban fringe will be conserved for agriculture, forestry, recreation and other uses appropriate within a rural area. The reasoned justification to the policy at paragraph 3.2.7 explains that the aim of the policy is, amongst other things, ‘to restrict development in urban fringe areas to that which is suitable in a rural area’. 4. The settlement boundary (insofar as it relates to the appeal site) is carried forward unchanged in the emerging LDP (Policy KP3(B)). Policy EN1 states that there will be a www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/Z6815/A/14/2229933 presumption against development in the countryside, beyond the settlement boundaries defined in the plan, except where it can be justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation and tourism uses. 5. There is no dispute that the proposed development conflicts with adopted and emerging plan policies which place strict controls over development in the countryside/urban fringe. The emerging LDP has reached an advanced stage in its examination. Policy EN1’s restrictions on development in the countryside accord with national policy but the extent to which policies relevant to this appeal may change is unknown. As a consequence, I afford the emerging LDP limited weight. 6. The appellant points out that the adopted Local Plan has time expired (2006) and that it was produced, amongst other things, to meet the city’s housing needs as predicted in the 1990s. However, the fact remains that the site lies in the countryside outside the settlement boundary and the proposed development conflicts with Policy 5 of the Local Plan. Sustainability 7. The definition of sustainable development in Planning Policy Wales (PPW) encompasses a range of things. In this case the main bone of contention is the ability of prospective residents to access services by means other than the private car. Manual for Streets advises that walkable neighbourhoods typically have a range of facilities within around 800m (10 minutes walk) but also that ‘walking offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly those under 2km’. The retail park at Pontprennau is within a 15 – 20 minute walk. However, Bridge Road has no segregated footpath. Church Road is narrow, unlit and hemmed in by high hedges and I consider it highly unlikely that residents would walk or cycle to Pontprennau. 8. The Statement of Common Ground includes lists a range of shops, facilities and bus stops within about 1.6km of the site in St Mellons. Again Bridge Road has no footway and rises steeply from the site entrance to Tyr Winch Road. Residents would have the option of using Ruperra Close which provides a segregated link via a path to Tyr Winch Road but would still need to walk along Bridge Road from the site. However, once there, one can walk safely to a range of facilities, including bus services and I am satisfied that walking and cycling would be a viable alternative to the car1. 9. The appeal site lies around 400m from the St Ederyn’s development site which has outline planning permission for 1020 dwellings, a village centre including retail, employment and community uses and a primary school. The scheme includes the closure of Bridge Road to through vehicular traffic just to the west of its junction with Ruperra Close and its conversion to a ‘Quiet Lane’. The existing X59 bus service (city centre - Pontprennau) would be extended to serve the new development. 10. In their report to committee relating to the appeal application Council officers state that the development subject to this appeal ‘may be considered ‘sustainable’ in transport terms in the future, once the St Ederyn’s development has reached a stage at which public transport and other services have been provided’. The Council’s Operational Transport Manager has no objection to the appeal proposal subject to the occupation of the proposed dwellings being linked to the provision of the bus service and other facilities at St Ederyn’s. 1 The unilateral undertaking submitted by the appellant makes provision for a Travel Plan and bus passes/vouchers for prospective residents. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/Z6815/A/14/2229933 11. A reserved matters application for the first phase of St Ederyn’s which includes the village centre (retail, café and commercial units) and a number of pre commencement conditions discharge applications were approved on 13 May 2015. The bus service and the works to Bridge Road must be provided by the occupation of the 50th dwelling and I heard that this is likely to be in 2016. The appellant suggested and (without prejudice to its position with regard to the principle of development) the Council agreed that the occupation of the appeal site could be linked to the provision of the facilities at St Ederyn’s. Some of the houses would be occupied before the bus service etc came into use but so would dwellings at St Ederyn’s. I am satisfied that, with regard to the ability of prospective residents to access services by means other than the private car, the site is in a sustainable location. Other matters 12. The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds and I have seen no technical evidence to lead me to a different view. Nor have I seen any empirical evidence to support the contention that the site comprises best and most versatile agricultural land. The hedge between the existing and proposed houses would be retained, add this to the distance between them and I am satisfied that existing residents would enjoy satisfactory standards of privacy. Overall conclusions 13. The latest Joint Housing Land Availability Study for the city records that Cardiff has a housing land supply of 3.6 years. Technical Advice Note 1; Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (TAN1), states that where housing land supply falls below 5 years ‘the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications provided that the development would otherwise comply with development plan and national planning policies’. 14. As stated above, I consider that the proposed development is in a sustainable location with regard to access to facilities by modes other than the car. The proposal would provide much needed affordable housing, it is not at risk of flooding and the appellant has submitted reports which show that any environmental/ecological impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. In my view, the proposal complies with development plan and national polices in all respects other than its location outside the settlement boundary and in the countryside. 15. The Council is not averse to permitting development outside the Local Plan settlement boundary as evidenced by St Ederyn’s and other examples are cited by the appellant. The appellant also draws my attention to appeal decisions in which Welsh Ministers and Inspectors considered that the need to increase housing supply outweighed conflict with Policy 5 of the Local Plan2. However, the development of a strategic site/new community, such as St Ederyn’s which is allocated in the LDP3, is different to the relatively small development before me. Further, at the time of the Church Road and Michaelston Road appeals the LDP was still some way from examination and there was little prospect of an early plan led resolution to the lack of a 5 year housing land supply. 2 APP/Z6815/A/11/2160990 & APP/Z6815/A/11/2157448 3 Strategic Site G www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/Z6815/A/14/2229933 16. That is not the case here. The Council is currently producing matters arising changes resulting from the examination hearings. Given that these changes will be subject to consultation and that further hearings cannot be ruled out, the Council’s expectation that the LDP will be adopted in October 2015 appears optimistic.