Planning Appeal in Randwick

On Tuesday the Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made their decision on the proposals for a house at Glenfield, Ash Lane, Townsend, Randwick. The Inspector in Bristol dismissed the appeal on Tuesday. Their full report is available but basically they agreed with Stroud District Council's decision - and confirmed my objections noted in my letter (enclosed below).

Photo: Ash Lane - See discussion over the plans for the bank on this blog 16th December 2007 and how this site was saved by quick action of residents.

I cannot go into all the issues here, but my main objections were to works that Highways wanted. I think the land might support another house although I would wish to see more sensitive designs and a smaller home. I am delighted that this appeal has been dismissed as it will preserve the rural nature of Randwick and also sets clear guidance to those wishing to develop in the future.

The Inspector noted: "I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area." He then went on to outline reasons:

Reasons
4. The appeal relates to the site of an existing residential property situated towards the periphery of the built-up area of Randwick. I saw on my visit that this part of the settlement has a strong semi-rural character, being less densely developed than the central area, such that the dwellings tend to be arranged informally around characteristically narrow streets.
5. It seems to me that these qualities help to create a distinctive and most attractive local character. The site is also within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which should be afforded the highest level of protection in relation to landscape and natural beauty, and is adjacent to the Randwick Conservation Area.
6. In broad terms, I concur with the Council’s assessment that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate an additional dwelling, without leading to a Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/08/20647632 cramped or unduly urban form of development. Moreover, the moderate scale and tradition design and form of the proposed dwelling would harmonise with the local vernacular.
7. However, I am concerned about the extent of the highway works that are proposed to accommodate the requirements of the highway authority, in terms of visibility, etc. These include the realignment of the existing boundary wall and substantial regrading of the earth bank fronting the main road, adjacent to the junction with Ash Lane. I am not concerned about the works to realign the boundary wall, because it would not be difficult to rebuild the wall much as it was, behind a new grass verge. I am satisfied that these works could be carried out without fundamentally changing the rural character of the lane.
8. However, the works to the bank are substantial. A large part of the bank would be removed and regraded to provide the requisite visibility splay. I am concerned that these works would remove a large part of a local landscape feature and reduce the characteristic sense of enclosure, which is a feature of the local roads. I am also concerned about the use of a gabion wall to retain the bank. This would fundamentally alter the character and appearance of the bank, from a natural-looking traditional landscape feature, to something altogether more urban and artificial in appearance.
9. In my opinion, the effect of these works would be to erode the semi-rural character of the road. Particularly as only limited details have been provided about the works to the bank, the treatment of the retaining wall and any associated landscaping, I do not consider that the appellants have demonstrated that this adverse effect could be adequately ameliorated by a scheme of soft landscape works. That being so, my concern could not be overcome by means of a condition, requiring the submission of further details and/or a landscaping scheme.
10. This leads me to conclude that the proposed development, by reason of the works to the bank, would harm the character and appearance of the area. To the extent that the development would harm the semi-rural character of this part of the settlement, I am of the opinion that the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area, based on the traditional street pattern and building forms, would not be preserved. Furthermore, I consider that the scheme would be detrimental to the form and setting of the settlement in the surrounding AONB, a fine pastoral landscape of gently rolling hills and copse woodland.
11. For the reasons given above, I therefore find the proposal to be contrary to Policies BE5, NE8 and NE13 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, which seek, amongst other things, to preserve the natural beauty of the landscape of the AONB and to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas, including their setting, with reference to such matters as design and landscaping. I do not consider that this objection is outweighed by the general thrust of national policy, in terms of the need to make full and effective use of previously developed land, because national policy also seeks to create high quality residential environments and to protect designated areas, such as the AONB, for their special quality.

Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/08/20647633
12. In other respects, I consider the siting and orientation of the development in relation to neighbouring properties to be such that no significant harm would be caused to the living conditions of local residents. Neither do I consider that the development would have a significant effect on traffic conditions on local roads. However, the lack of harm on these points is not sufficient to overcome my concern on the main issue, which is significant and over-riding. Accordingly, the appeal fails.

My objection to this application

S.07/0870/ Land at Glenfield, Townsend, Randwick
Appeal Start Date: 4th February 2008

I would like to add to my original objection to this development on grounds of highway safety and visual impact. I agree that the bank re-grading is contrary to policies BE5, NE13 and NE8 of the adopted Local Plan (2005). I also consider that it contravenes policy GE5.

I would also like to note the very strong opposition to this move from all the local residence I have spoken to. Indeed when there was a threat to the bank being re-graded by a developer who mistakenly thought he had permission residents turned out to protect it from diggers for a whole day.

Re GE5: The proposed changes to the boundary walls will, I consider, lead to a potentially dangerous increase in traffic speeds. It is well established that when cars have good visibility they increase their speeds. It is my considered opinion that by cutting back the bank this will lead to faster speeds and more dangers at the corner where Ash Lane meets the road.

At the moment the reduced visibility of the existing road encourages drivers to slow down on this stretch. The visibility splays will tend to lead to faster traffic speeds at a crucial point where the footpath ends. The changes as outlined are likely to improve safety for any emerging traffic from the proposed property but this will I consider be at the expense of other road users. This is a very busy part of the road which continues with no pavement and is used by many pedestrians particularly young children and parents walking to local schools and the church.

If there are concerns from Highways I consider that other measures including a 20 mph might be a more useful way of slowing traffic and increasing safety on that stretch of the road. I am disappointed that Highways have not sought advice from the community in their considerations of how best to address this issue.

Re: BE5, NE13 and NE8: The changes to the bank will have a significant negative effect on the local environment. The gabion is particularly bad but any cutting away of the bank would also be seriously detrimental to how this area looks. This is in the AONB and adjacent to the Conservation Area: it is also the 'Gateway' road leading into the village. It is my view that currently the bank forms a comfortable lie to the land and cutting into it would alter that.

The appellants note that the bank is untidy: it is true that it is not looking as good as in the past due to the removal of several trees last year that were allegedly making the bank unstable. This view about the bank being unstable is strongly disputed by some residents but even with the trees removed the bank is in my view an attractive natural feature.

Cllr. Philip Booth,
Stroud District councillor for the Randwick, Ruscombe and Whiteshill ward,