269 Lodge Causeway, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA
Bristol City Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 1 November 2021
- Authority
- Bristol City Council
- Inspector
- Tucker A
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Development type
- Minor retail and services
- Appellant
- Coral Real Estate
- Agent
- Three Magnets Planning
- LPA reference
- 21/01236/COU
- ONS LPA code
- E06000023
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 26 August 2021
Summary AI
The appeal for a prior notification for conversion of rear part of retail to one dwelling was dismissed due to the proposal not meeting the permitted development criteria. The inspector found that the internal floor area of the proposed unit would fall significantly below the required 37m2. Additionally, the transport and highways impacts of the development were found to be acceptable, but this did not change the outcome as the proposal would not be permitted development.
PDF text
269 Lodge Causeway, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA — Bristol City Council — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 19 October 2021 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 November 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/W/21/3278413 269 Lodge Causeway, Fishponds, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr Ben Elliot of Coral Real Estate against the decision of Bristol City Council. • The application Ref 21/01236/COU, dated 27 March 2021, was refused by notice dated 12 May 2021. • The development proposed is prior notification for conversion of rear part of retail (Use Class A1) to one dwelling (Use Class C3) under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. On 20 July 2021, following the Council’s decision, the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
269 Lodge Causeway, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA — Bristol City Council — Appeal Decision Both parties have had an opportunity to comment on the revisions where they may be relevant to the case, and any comments received have been taken into account in determining the appeal. 3. The appellant submitted an updated plan during the appeal process to show additional information relating to the bin store. This is supplementary information that has not altered the proposal. I do not consider the interests of any party to be prejudiced if I take the revised plan into account. I shall therefore determine the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 4. The main issues are: a) whether the proposal would be permitted development, and b) the transport and highways impacts of the development. Reasons Permitted Development 5. From 6 April 2021, Article 3(9A) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 provides that Schedule 2 does not permit any new dwellinghouse where the gross https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
269 Lodge Causeway, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA — Bristol City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/W/21/3278413 internal floorspace is less than 37m2. The submitted plans show that the internal floor area of the proposed unit would fall significantly below this requirement. 6. It follows that as my decision must be made in accordance with the legislation in force at the time, I must conclude that the proposal would not be permitted development. Transport and highways impacts 7. The reason for refusal on the Council’s Decision Notice relates to whether the proposed facilities for refuse and recycling storage would be acceptable under the prior approval matter set out in Paragraph M.2 (1) (a) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO. Refuse and recycling storage would be provided at the rear of the site. Occupiers of the proposed dwelling would need to move stored material from this location to the highway on collection days, which would involve navigating a considerable length of an unadopted lane. 8. At my visit I saw that several existing dwellings use the lane for such purposes, and information before me suggests that bins and other receptacles are moved to the end of the lane to be collected from Lodge Causeway on collection days.
269 Lodge Causeway, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA — Bristol City Council — Appeal Decision At my visit I saw that the junction is wide enough for such purposes and that no bins are stored permanently in this area. 9. Although the distance between the site and the collection area at the junction of the lane and Lodge Causeway is in excess of the Council’s guidance, I am satisfied that it is not excessive. Furthermore, I give weight to the significant number of residential units that use the rear lane for the same purpose. The proposed bin store would be convenient for the occupiers of the proposed unit to access on a day to day basis. I can thus see no reason why the proposal would result in the storage of waste and recycling receptacles on the highway. 10. The amended detail on the submitted plan demonstrates that the proposed store would be appropriately sized, and I can see no reason why its use would conflict with the storage of commercial waste material arising from the use of other parts of the building. 11.
269 Lodge Causeway, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA — Bristol City Council — Appeal Decision In summary I am satisfied that the transport and highways impacts of the proposal would be acceptable, and that it would accord with Policy BCS10 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 and Policies DM23 and DM32 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014, which together seek to ensure the provision of safe streets and suitable provision for recycling and refuse storage. Other Matters 12. The Council accepts that paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework is engaged for planning applications due to its failure to deliver sufficient numbers of new dwellings, with reference to the 2020 Housing Delivery Test. However, in determining this appeal my assessment of the proposal against the Framework is limited to those matters set out in Paragraph M.2 (1) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO. Therefore, the subject of housing delivery has no bearing on the outcome of this permitted development appeal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
269 Lodge Causeway, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA — Bristol City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/W/21/3278413 Conclusion 13. Although I have found that the transport and highways impacts of the proposal would be acceptable I have found that the proposal would not be permitted development. Therefore, for the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed.
269 Lodge Causeway, BRISTOL, BS16 3RA — Bristol City Council — A Tucker INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3
Main issues and findings
Housing land supply For appellant
The proposal was found to be in accordance with the transport and highways impacts, but the lack of permitted development status was the deciding factor.
Other Against appellant ¶5
The proposal would not be permitted development due to the internal floor area being less than 37m2.
Other For appellant ¶9-10
The transport and highways impacts of the proposal were found to be acceptable, with the proposed bin store being convenient for the occupiers of the proposed unit and the junction being wide enough for the movement of bins.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| NPPF 208 |
Unclear |
| BCS10 |
Determinative |
| DM23 |
Substantial |
| DM32 |
Substantial |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 1 November 2021 under the Open Government Licence.