Case Reference: 3272284

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 26 October 2021
Hearing held on 29 March 2022
Site visit on 30 March 2022
by J P Longmuir BA(Hons) DipUD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 15 August 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/K0425/W/21/3272284
Orchard House, Amersham Road, Hazlemere HP15 7JH
• 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 [APPELLANT] against
the decision of Wycombe District Council.
• The application Ref 20/07610/FUL, dated 30 September 2020, was refused by notice
dated 2 December 2020.
• The development proposed is construction of 8no. four-bedroom, detached houses with
associated parking, landscaping and access amendments to retain Orchard House.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The appeal was submitted as a written representation. However, following the
site visit it was decided to change the procedure to a hearing due to the
number and complexities of the issues. Both parties were given the opportunity
to submit further evidence to provide an updated position for the hearing. The
Council did submit further evidence.
3. A unilateral undertaking was submitted on the 6 April 2022 and copied to the
Council. This provides financial contributions for off-site ecological
enhancement to mitigate the appeal site impact and expansion of primary
education facilities.
4. Immediately prior to the hearing the appellant submitted a landscape strategy
plan LC-2782-01 for the appeal site. This did not change the layout of the
development but provided an indication of the potential scope of new planting.
The Council were able to consider the plan and did not raise any objection to
the submission. No party would be prejudiced were I to take the additional
information into account and I have determined the appeal accordingly.
5. During the hearing the Council stated that they no longer had objections to the
living conditions of the intended occupants of plots one and eight. These are
the subject of refusal reasons 7 and 8. In the case of plot one, a detailed
drawing was submitted which shows a 25-metre separation distance between
the house and the residential annex. The potential shadowing to plot eight
would be resolved by the removal of a row of mature conifers in the
aforementioned landscape strategy plan, which the Council agreed could be
secured by condition. I similarly concur that the future occupants would have
satisfactory living conditions.
6. In terms of reason for refusal 10 relating to surface water disposal, prior to the
hearing, the Council considered the details that had been submitted earlier at
the end of the planning application stage when they had not been able to
accept the submission. The Council accepted that in principle adequate surface
water run-off could be adequately managed on the appeal site and it no longer
objected on this aspect of the proposed development subject to a condition. I
similarly concur that in principle surface water run-off could be managed.
Background
7. The site is part of a larger allocation in Policy HW8 of the 2019 Wycombe Local
Plan for 350 dwellings on 12.87ha of land. The policy requires a development
brief to provide comprehensive development across the allocated site. Work on
this development brief has only recently commenced and is likely to take
several months to complete. Meanwhile the landowners of the adjacent sites,
Inland Ltd and Bellway Homes, have submitted planning applications for
development. The Inland Ltd site is the subject of an outline application for 101
dwellings. This takes in the northern part of the allocation, involving the
demolition of an existing dwelling to gain access from Holmer Green. It was
considered by the Council’s committee in March and deferred pending the
development brief. The Bellway Homes application is in full for 290 dwellings
and is more recently submitted; this extends beyond the boundaries of the
Local Plan allocated area with access from the Wycombe Road to the west of
the appeal site.
The main issues
8. I start by considering the appeal scheme on its own merits, then having regard
to the reasons for refusal, I consider whether the appeal scheme would be
likely to prejudice the implementation of this wider allocation. The main issues
are therefore:
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area,
including the Chilterns AONB;
• the effect of the proposal on highway safety;
• whether the site would be in an accessible location for the intended
occupants of the new dwellings in relation to non vehicular access to
everyday services and facilities;
• whether the proposal should provide affordable housing;
• the effect of the proposal on the delivery of services and infrastructure;
• the effect of the proposal on biodiversity and;
• whether the proposal would prejudice implementation of the wider HW8
allocated site.
Reasons
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
9. The HW8 allocated land is described in the accompanying text to policy HW8,
as located on the edge of High Wycombe urban area and currently consists of a
mix of farmland and woodland.
10. The appeal site is part of the southern area of the allocated site and includes
the A404 frontage. It consists of the grounds to the front and side of Orchard
House, although the dwelling itself is excluded from the appeal site. To the side
of the site is a loosely surfaced track which leads behind the appeal site to a
disused car repair yard, also part of the HW8 allocated area.
11. The site is prominent from the A404 Wycombe Road in both directions. There
are a few houses in the area, towards the west, High Wycombe, but these are
softened and partially obscured by trees and hedges; the site appears within
the countryside. There is a low hedge on the Wycombe Road frontage over
which the site is visible: it is largely open, and the existing house, annex and
outbuildings are all set back, so that there is a sense of openness. It is
therefore unassuming and does not attract attention. The focus of attention is
away from the appeal site, towards the trees and hedges beside the A404 and
the nearby woodland. On the opposite side of the road is a golf course which is
largely obscured by frontage vegetation.
12. The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is on the opposite
side of Wycombe Road and includes Penn Woods, which is on slightly elevated
ground and in sight of the appeal site. The AONB is characterised by its
undulating chalk slopes, open views and blocks of woodland.
13. The proposal is for development across the width of the site with minimal gaps
in between. The elevations are similar for seven of the plots creating a
repetitive appearance. When seen from most viewpoints the houses would
appear in an almost continuous line across the site which together with the
hard surfaces for the access and car parking would collectively create an
intensive development. Such a line of development and the repetitive designs
would be more likely to be associated with a suburban area, whereas
informality (including variation in house designs), and a lesser extent of
development, would be more typical in this rural context.
14. Car parking is proposed along the majority of the frontage and whilst the
existing hedge could be reinforced as part of a landscaping scheme together
with some tree planting, such landscaping would take significant time to
mature, meanwhile the metallic texture and colours of the cars would be
obtrusive. In addition, the hedge would need to be high to wholly obscure the
roofs of cars.
15. The site is experienced in conjunction with the AONB and contributes to its
setting by providing an open and rural appearance. This would be changed to
one of a predominance of enclosed development. It would attract attention so
that the nearby trees, hedges and woodland would not appear prominently.
16. Amongst other matters, Policy DM34 of the Local Plan seeks to deliver green
infrastructure and enhance biodiversity. On sites outside of town centres it
requires development to achieve a future canopy cover of 25% of the site area.
In terms of the allocated site, policy HW8 includes requirements in respect of
green infrastructure, this is particularly relevant for the appeal site since it
forms the frontage for the HW8 allocation. Whilst full planting details have not
been provided, it is nonetheless evident that limited space would be available
for planting new trees, with enough space for them to flourish thereafter. The
extent of landscaping would be insufficient for the appeal proposal.
Consequently, the proposed houses and cars would appear overly strident.
17. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and
appearance of the area including the setting of the Chilterns AONB.
18. Policy HW8 requires a sense of separation between Hazlemere and Holmer
Green, which would not be achieved by the line of new houses. Similarly, policy
DM34 requires a 25% [green] canopy, which would not be provided and Policy
DM11 of the Adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (DSAP) requires all
development to contribute to improvements to the Green Infrastructure
network. The proposal would be contrary to the above policies.
19. Policy DM35 of the Local Plan requires all development to improve the
character of the area and the way it functions. Policy CP9 requires a distinctive
high quality sense of place by conserving and enhancing the natural
environment. Policy CP10 requires conserving, protecting and enhancing the
AONB by its protection from harmful development. The proposal would be
contrary to the above policies.
20. Paragraph 126 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
sees the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places
as fundamental to what planning should achieve. Paragraph 130 states
developments should be visually attractive as a result of good architecture,
layout and appropriate and effective landscaping. Paragraph 176 requires
development to be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise the
impact on the setting of AONBs. The proposal would be contrary to the above
policies.
The effect on highway safety
21. The appeal site lies just off the A404 which links Amersham to High Wycombe.
This is a busy road, which is confirmed by a 2019 survey1 for the County
Council. The road is a single carriageway, and the centre line is demarcated
with hatchings to segregate the opposing traffic.
22. The A404 by the appeal site is limited to 50mph and drops to 40mph
approximately 200m to the west nearer Hazlemere. The proposed access would
be within the 50mph limit.
23. The proposed development would be a priority junction on Amersham Road.
This would entail traffic leaving the site having to wait for a gap in the traffic.
Inevitably frustration would be likely to lead to the potential of a vehicle using
inadequate gaps into the traffic flow. Similarly, cars seeking to enter the site
from the east (Amersham) direction would be likely to frequently have to wait
in the centre of the carriageway for a gap in the incoming traffic. Such a
position in the centre of busy traffic would be vulnerable to collision and equally
judgment would be critical whether a gap would be adequate.
1 Traffic Data: Appendix E to Written Statement on Highway Matters
24. I therefore find that the access would lead to potential collisions through
frustration and inevitable risks being taken to use inadequate gaps in the traffic
as well as the risk from stationary vehicles waiting to turn. The County Council
estimate that each dwelling would generate 4-6 vehicles per day, which was
not disputed by the appellant. This traffic generation on an everyday basis
would be significant, leading to the likelihood of accidents.
25. Policy DM33 requires safe access to a site. Similarly, paragraph 110 requires
safe and suitable access. Paragraph 111 of the Framework states development
should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an
unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on
the road network would be severe. The proposal would lead to an unacceptable
impact on highway safety and the proposal would be in conflict with the above.
The accessibility of the site
26. The site is in the countryside approximately 2 kilometres away from
Hazlemere, which has everyday facilities. It is linked by the A404 Wycombe
Road which for a significant part has no pedestrian footway. There is a grass
verge beside the road, but as I found out on my initial site visit, that is not
conducive to walking in terms of its surface and the intimidating busyness of
the traffic. It also has significant slopes which would deter some cyclists. There
are slightly nearer facilities off Eastern Dene (road), which is an outlying part of
Hazlemere, off Wycombe Road, but these facilities also involve walking along
the grass verge by the A404. Bus services would also require walking to get to
the bus stop.
27. The appellant’s transport assessment refers to the site’s accessibility as limited.
I similarly consider that the occupants of the proposed development would
have limited non-vehicular access and would be largely car dependent.
28. There are facilities at Holmer Green which includes education, a pub, various
food and everyday shops, however these are only accessible via the A404 away
from the High Wycombe direction and the offshoot Earl Howe Road, which are a
circuitous long route around the appeal site.
29. I therefore find that the appeal site would not be reasonably accessible to
everyday facilities without the use of private vehicles. Consequently, at the
present time the occupants of the development would be car dependent, which
would generate carbon emissions; the appeal site in isolation is therefore not in
a suitable location for residential development. Whilst a suggested condition
requires the provision of electric charging points, which would assist in carbon
emissions, that would not necessarily account for all journeys.
30. I therefore find that the proposal would be harmful in terms of climate change
and social isolation as the occupants would be disjointed from a community.
31. If the Bellway Homes land, was to be developed it is possible that a connection
to Holmer Green could be established. However, the Bellway Homes and Inland
Ltd schemes do not have permission and even if they did there is no certainty
that they would be implemented or that such a link would be acceptable to the
developer/owner of the site.
32. The proposal would contravene the Local Plan strategy: Policy HW8 seeks to
promote walking and cycling to facilities, policy CP1 which requires sustainable
development, as well as policy DM33 which seeks carbon efficient siting of
development. CP12 titled climate change also requires siting of development
close to facilities. Similarly, the proposal would conflict with policy DM2 of the
DSAP which requires walking and cycling routes to serve new development.
33. Paragraph 73 of the Framework states that large scale extensions to villages
should be well located, designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure
and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes). Paragraph 104
seeks to promote walking, cycling and public transport. Similarly, paragraph
105 seeks to promote growth in locations to avoid emissions. The proposal
would be contrary to the Framework.
Affordable housing
34. Local Plan policy DM24 seeks the provision of affordable housing. Based on the
size of the appeal site and the number of dwellings proposed, the appeal
proposal would not be expected to provide affordable housing based on the
specified thresholds. Notwithstanding this, paragraph 3 of the policy states that
ꞌwhere a development falls below the size thresholds but is demonstrably part
of a potentially larger developable area above those thresholds the Council will
require affordable housing on a pro rata basisꞌ.
35. Whilst the appeal site and the remainder of the HW8 are both developable, the
critical consideration is whether the appeal site is demonstrably part of a larger
area. The red line of the appeal site is not contiguous with the remainder of the
HW8 site, as the appellant made clear at the hearing there is a need to provide
some garden area to the existing house and therefore the boundaries could not
align. The red line on the location plan indicates the extent of the appeal site
and excludes the existing dwelling and an area of garden due to that being
retained by the dwelling.
36. Additionally, the sites are in a different ownership, and I am advised that this
has always been the case. The sites have also had different uses. Although the
site forms part of a wider allocation, I nonetheless conclude that it is not part
of a larger developable site but is an existing residential property in separate
ownership. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to expect affordable housing to be
provided.
37. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be contrary to Local Plan
policy DM24. Similarly, there would be no conflict with paragraph 64 of the
Framework which states affordable housing should not be sought for non-major
development.
Provision of infrastructure /facilities
38. The submitted unilateral undertaking provides the required primary education
contribution based on the number of pupils that would arise from eight houses.
This would satisfy the requirements in paragraph 4 of policies HW8 and DM19
for adequate education facilities to be provided for the occupants of new
dwellings.
39. The houses would also fall within the Council’s adopted CIL charging scheme,
which could provide a range of potential facilities to the Council’s choosing.
40. The necessity for the proposal to contribute towards infrastructure for the wider
allocated HW8 is discussed latterly.
41. I therefore conclude that the proposal, in terms of this appeal site, would meet
its own particular infrastructure needs. In this particular respect the proposal
would not be contrary to policies HW8 and DM19 of the Local Plan.
Biodiversity
42. The appeal site consists of closely mown grass, with only a few broad-leaved
trees/shrubs, a row of conifers and boundary hedges. The site has limited
vegetation and appears largely to have been used as a garden, which together
with the adjacent main road would discourage some species. I have not been
made aware of any record of protected species or habitat on the appeal site.
43. The proposal would provide some new landscaping. Moreover, the submitted
unilateral undertaking provides a financial contribution towards ecological
enhancement elsewhere, in schemes overseen by the Council.
44. Whilst the row of houses and siting of parking in the appeal proposal would
discourage a wildlife corridor, this would not be significantly different to the
existing situation. At the hearing both the main parties agreed that taken
together the proposal would represent an enhancement. I similarly concur.
45. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm biodiversity on the
appeal site and provision on the wider HW8 allocation.
46. Local Plan policy HW8 requires the retention of field boundaries and promotion
of green infrastructure. Policy CP10 promotes biodiversity enhancement
through green infrastructure. Policy DM11 of the DSAP requires provision of
green links across developments, whilst Policy DM14 of the DSAP states that all
development proposals should be designed to maximise biodiversity. Paragraph
179 of the Framework requires the promotion of biodiversity and wildlife
corridors. The proposal in terms of biodiversity would not be contrary to the
above policies.
The effect of the proposal on the potential to implement the wider HW8
site
The effect of the proposal on the wider HW8 site: Potential access
47. Policy HW8 criterion c requires a comprehensive development of the allocated
site. This is a broadly rectangular shape stretching from Holmer Green village
in the north and extending to the south up to the A404, the main road leading
to High Wycombe. Policy HW8 envisages access from the High Wycombe Road
to the appeal site and an arrow is shown indicatively as a potential access
across the appeal site.
48. The submitted layout shows that the 8 houses, the subject of the appeal
proposal, would use the existing drive to Orchard House, through the centre of
the appeal site. This drive would be inadequate for a larger development.
49. There is an existing adjacent track to the side of the appeal site which leads
behind into the wider HW8 allocation. There is an annotation on the submitted
layout which denotes space left potentially for access to the wider site, using in
part the existing loosely surfaced track to the side of the appeal site and in part
land occupied by a row of conifers, identified in a blue (ownership) line on the
site location plan. The row of conifers is shown for removal in the landscape
strategy plan, which would increase the available space.
50. The submitted evidence produced does not prove that this track and the
annotated land shown on the submitted layout, would be insufficient for an
access serving a substantial development. Indeed, much would depend upon
the particular design of the access which is unknown at this stage. However
even if the space was limited, it is not inconceivable that a form of traffic
management may be possible.
51. This access would join Wycombe Road. It would need visibility in both
directions, which would be likely to be achievable with the straightness of the
road. The design of the junction is not known. However, there are wide verges
either side of the carriageway which would help towards the space needed for
its provision, and the space required will vary depending upon the nature of the
junction.
52. The submitted Bellway Homes scheme shows an access away from the appeal
site nearer towards Hazlemere. This involves the demolition of an existing
dwelling, and the creation of a splayed vehicle access with a lane for turning in
the A404 main road. This scheme does not have permission, but the highways
officer has indicated its potential acceptability. Whilst its provision is not
guaranteed, this nonetheless indicates a potential alternative access.
The effect of the proposal on the wider HW8 site: Other matters
53. Policy HW8 promotes the ecological connectivity of corridors throughout the
allocated development. An existing orchard to the north towards Holmer Green,
is noted as an important habitat on the allocated site. However, the appeal site
is currently segregated from the orchard/greenfield element of the HW8
allocation by a hard surfaced car repair yard which forms a discouraging barrier
to most wildlife. Additionally, the busy Wycombe Road would limit the
connectivity beyond the HW8 allocation. There would be wildlife movement
along the site boundaries as shown on the landscaping strategy plan. I
therefore conclude in respect of biodiversity, the development of the appeal
site would not prejudice measures on the wider allocation.
54. In addition, the Council at the hearing did question the need for open space
provision/recreation facilities on the HW8 allocation as a whole. However, the
CIL payments could be used to supplement the provision provided as part of
the development of the rest of the HW8 site. There was no other indication
from the Council that other needs could not be met by the potential CIL
payments. Additionally, the site and proposal do not have any particular
characteristics which would constrain provision on the wider site.
The effect of the proposal on the wider HW8 site: Conclusion
55. Based on the evidence produced at the hearing and my own observations on
site, I therefore conclude that the delivery of the HW8 allocation would not be
prejudiced by this appeal proposal for eight houses. In this respect I conclude
that the proposal would not conflict with policy HW8 as well as policy CP4 which
provides for housing delivery across the plan area.
Planning Balance
56. It was agreed at the hearing that the Council is meeting its five-year housing
land supply requirements with between 6.4 and 6.5 years supply based on the
need established in the 2019 Local Plan. Section 38(6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states determination must be made in
accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
57. I have found that the proposal would be harmful to the character and
appearance of the area and spoil the contribution of the site to the rural setting
of the AONB. In addition, the movements associated with the proposed 8
houses would harm the safety of the A404.
58. The appeal site is located in an area of poor access for non-motorised travel.
This has the potential to change if the cycling/walking connection to the
existing facilities at Holmer Green is provided by the allocated site being
developed in a coordinated way. The appeal site plan shows land in a blue line
connecting the appeal site to the Bellway Homes land, so theoretically a
connection may be possible. However, the Bellway Homes and Inland Ltd
schemes do not have permission and implementation is at present uncertain.
In addition, as stated at the hearing, these schemes do not link up in terms of
their proposed footpaths and cycleways. Such connectivity may yet be
achievable as there is intervening open space but that is not confirmed in
either of their detailed schemes. It therefore cannot be assumed that such a
link will be achieved, so the occupants of the appeal proposal would be car
dependent for everyday living, leading to the generation of carbon emissions.
59. The proposal would provide 8 new dwellings which would have economic
benefits through their construction but that would be very short term. The
benefits would not be substantial and do not outweigh the harm that I have
found.
Conclusion
60. The proposal would be harmful and contrary to the Development Plan as a
whole. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
John Longmuir
INSPECTOR
Plans presented during the hearing:
Landscaping strategy plan LC-2782-01
Tranquillity mapping [AONB]
Transport assessment for Bellway Homes for residential development
Planning application plans for the proposed access by Bellway Homes
Appearances
For the Appellant:
Mr Wesley McCarthy BEcon MTP MRTPI Nicolas King Homes
Mr Paul Dickinson BA(Homs) MRTPI MRICS MCMI Paul Dickinson Associates
Mr Harry Cross BSc MCIHT Principal Transport Planner
Mr Greg Nightingale BSc MCIEEM Principal Ecologist
For the Council:
Mr Declan Cleary MTCP MRTPI Principal Planning Consultant
Mr Matthew Hardy BSc Team Leader Highways
Mr Philip Simpkin MCIF MA MSc PD Arb BSc Team Leader Ecology
Mr Yuen Wong BA(Hons) MA MRTPI Principal Planning Policy Officer