PPA | Nailsea Abattoir

professional planning appraisal PPA


Bakers, Nailsea Wall Lane, Nailsea, BS48 4DD


November 2019


| auctions

residential sales

residential sales | auctions | the property cycle






“ …our aim is to be the number one new homes agent in the city for small/medium size developments… CALUM MELHUISH

the property cycle | residential sales | auctions

we want your

renovated property…

Be a part of the hollis morgan property cycle… Many of our successful auction clients instruct the Hollis Morgan Residential Team to sell their renovated and new build properties. If you instruct our residential sales

team to sell your renovated property, we will refund your buyers’ premium*.

Your property is only new to the market once... get it right first time with Hollis Morgan

turn the page to see some successful examples …

* Based on a 12 week sole agency agreement with a commission rate of 1.5% + VAT.



1.1 A PPA is a detailed appraisal of the development potential of a site by qualified

Chartered Planners. It is based on a desk-top review of the site; the relevant

planning policy; and planning history. No site visit has been undertaken.

1.2 A planning appraisal is one of the most important and often under-rated planning

services provided to clients.

1.3 A well-researched and prepared appraisal will set out in an easy-to-read format,

the relevant opportunities and constraints applicable to a potential development


1.4 This planning appraisal covers all the relevant issues, with the core services as


i) Identifying planning policies relevant to a site and/or proposal.


Review of planning history.


Establishment of existing/lawful uses.

iv) Site assessment to identify planning opportunities and constraints;

v) Comprehensive appraisal covering all planning considerations.


Provision of development briefs.


Potential site layouts.

1.5 The PPA report is paid for by the purchaser of the site upon completion (£700 + VAT

is added to the contract) – they then have a £700 credit to spend on planning with

the planning team if they pursue development.

2 | P a g e



2.1 This site is currently in commercial use as an Abattoir (a Sui Generis use) and has the

benefit of a recent permission (ref. 19/P/2154/FUL) for a change of use of the existing

abattoir building to accommodate employment uses (Classes B1c, B2 and B8). The

current planning approval followed similar, previous (time expired) permissions

dating back to 1998, and was granted on 24/10/19, expiring on 24/10/22.


The existing Abattoir use and current planning

Figure 1

consent for employment uses relates to the

land within the red line boundary, as

indicated on the Site Location Plan extract

(Figure 1). The land within the blue line does

not benefit from any lawful land use and is

greenfield (undeveloped) in planning terms.

2.3 The is located outside the defined housing development boundary of Nailsea, in

open countryside (see Figure 2, below).

Approx. site location

Figure 2

3 | P a g e



3.1 The site is previously developed land (PDL). The National Planning Policy Framework

and adopted Development Plan prioritise the use of previously developed land

over greenfield land. The PDL nature of the site is a significant material

consideration and benefit in planning terms, particularly if it can be demonstrated

that there is no realistic prospect of re-use for employment, or an alternative use

appropriate for the rural location, and the proposal would deliver substantial visual

improvements to the site and landscape.

3.2 The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and as such,

the Development Plan is not up-to-date. Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning

Policy Framework (NPPF) dictates that permission is granted unless:

▪ Policies in the National Planning Policy Framework that protect areas or

assets of importance (including but not limited to protected landscapes such

as SSSI’s or AONBS; land at risk of flooding; or irreplaceable habitats) provide

a clear reason for refusing development; or

▪ Any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the


3.3 Housing delivery is high on the Government’s agenda, and the NPPF requires

Council’s to “boost significantly” housing supply. These are compelling material

considerations that weigh in favour of a housing scheme on the site (although it

should be noted that they would not over-ride any adverse impacts that cannot be

mitigated, and which provide a clear reason for refusing development).

3.4 The existing abattoir is likely to impact negatively on the environmental and

residential amenity of the locality, by virtue of odour, as well as noise/vibration

associated with the use of machinery and vehicular movements by large vehicles.

On the assumption that the existing use is served by heavy vehicles, it may also have

an impact on highway safety in view of the narrow country lanes with limited

passing places and poor visibility. These impacts would fall away with a residential

4 | P a g e


redevelopment, although a transport assessment would nonetheless be needed

covering trip generation and highway safety.


4.1 The site is located in open countryside, outside the defined settlement boundary of

Nailsea, where the adopted spatial strategy seeks to limit new housing

development. The adopted spatial strategy sets out a hierarchical approach to

housing, directing new residential development to the defined settlement

boundaries, and with limited development on land adjoining them.

4.2 The site’s countryside location, which does not adjoin Nailsea’s settlement

boundary, would render a residential redevelopment contrary to the adopted

spatial strategy, and so unacceptable in principle.

4.3 There could be a presumption in favour of approval as a result of the Development

Plan being out-of-date (provided there are no adverse impacts that outweigh the

benefits and no clear reasons for refusing development), however the Council may

conclude that the site’s location is unsustainable as a result of the distance from the

key services and facilities within the town, together with the absence of any safe

walking or cycling routes and poor public transport links.

4.4 The PDL nature of the site is, however, a strong material consideration that weighs

in favour of redevelopment. It is unlikely that the Council would want to see this site

abandoned and derelict in the long term, and although they may be resistant and

the application process could be protracted and difficult, it could be possible to

convince the Council that some limited housing development (restricted to the

existing PDL area) can be supported, provided:

▪ There is no realistic prospect of commercial re-use (see Paragraph 4.4 below)

or alternative land uses in preference to housing;

▪ A residential redevelopment would result in less vehicular movements than

the existing use or permitted employment uses, and it is possible to offer some

improvements to local highway safety as well as travel plan type measures

encouraging non-car use;

5 | P a g e


▪ The proposal would deliver substantial visual improvements to the site and

wider landscape (such as reducing floorspace and hard surface area on the

site, increasing soft landscaping, and delivering a modest redevelopment

appropriate for the rural location of the site and character of the area); and

▪ The biodiversity value of the site is improved.

4.5 The Council would be unlikely to support development on the greenfield land (i.e.

the land within the blue line boundary at Figure 1). Any support for redevelopment

on the PDL land (i.e. within the redline boundary) would be likely to be restricted to

the existing area of built form/hard surface, and no greater than the existing GIA on

the site.

4.6 The Core Strategy’s overall approach is employment led due to its imbalance

between economic and housing development. Existing employment sites are

protected unless proposals deliver community benefits and do not compromise the

range of sites and premises available for business use. Any application for non-

employment uses (including housing) would need to demonstrate that the site has

been marketed for its lawful and permitted land uses (normally for a minimum 12

month period), on reasonable terms, and that this exercise has not generated any

interest for continued commercial use. Full details of the marketing exercise and

the interest generated will need to be provided.

4.7 The site is located in an area of known importance for Greater Horseshoe Bats and

within Consultation Zone B of the North Somerset and Mendip Bat Special Area of

Consultation. The site could also have value for other protected species. Protected

species surveys during the May to September survey season are likely to be required,

together with extensive mitigation and enhancement. Any formal application

cannot be determined (positively) in advance of the survey results therefore this

should be factored into the planning process.

4.8 The PDL part of the site (i.e. the area where the building and hard-surface is located)

is enclosed on three boundaries by very dense soft planting (possibly hedgerows

but likely to be trees). These are likely to have significant value for wildlife

6 | P a g e


(particularly bats) and the Council will require these to be retained as part of any

planning application for redevelopment.

4.9 The site itself is not at risk of surface water flooding although if there is local evidence

that there are flooding issues, a Flood Risk Assessment may be required (these are

required automatically for sites in excess of 1ha).


5.1 The development potential of the site is likely to be restricted to the existing

developed/built up part, i.e. the area where the building and associated hard-

standing is located (circa 0.3ha).

5.2 The development of the existing fields within the site (i.e. the land within the blue

line) would be likely to be resisted by the Council.

5.3 The scale of the development would also be likely to be restricted to the existing

building GIA (approximately 1000sqm).

5.4 These limitations are due to the site’s countryside location with poor accessibility by

non-car modes, and the potential for landscape impact. A housing redevelopment

is only likely to be considered acceptable, as a policy departure, due to the site

being PDL.

5.5 The site’s rural location makes it more suitable for larger, family homes and these

should each be of bespoke, high quality design with the architectural style reflective

of the rural character.

5.6 A sketch layout is provided, which suggests 5no. four/five bedroom houses (of the

same type for illustrative purposes). This would equate to a density of 15 dwellings

per hectare (dph). Whilst this would be below the Core Strategy’s minimum net

density of 40dph, it would be reflective of the existing GIA and appropriate for the

site’s rural location.

5.7 The existing dense tree/hedges enclosing the existing built-up part of the site are a

significant constraint. The sketch layout provided does not take into account the

constraints associated with the tree/hedgerow boundaries, which could be bat

7 | P a g e


commuting/foraging corridors and so be required to be retained in darkness.

Additional buffers (i.e. supplementary hedges) may be required.

Development Principles and Requirements

5.8 Affordable Housing at 30% would be required for any scheme in excess of 9

dwellings or with a site area in excess of 0.5ha. A proposal for five dwellings (as

indicated on the sketch layout at Section 6) would not be liable for affordable


5.9 The Council operates a Community Infrastructure Levy (see CIL Charging Schedule

and the CIL and Development Contributions SPD, January 2016 1 ), which is based

on proposed floorspace and is payable upon commencement of the development.

Provided the building is in-use (for a continuous period of at least six months within

the three years ending on the day planning permission first permits the chargeable

development), the existing GIA can be deducted from the CIL amount associated

with the development.

5.10 An extended baseline (Phase 1) survey followed by protected species surveys,

during the May to September survey season, will be required, and extensive

mitigation and enhancement is likely to be required (particularly for bats). Existing

hedgerow boundaries will need to be retained and potentially supplemented with

new hedgerows to retain a ‘dark corridor’, and houses should be sited side-on to

prevent light spill. A lighting strategy and impact assessment, demonstrating that

the areas important for bats can be retained in darkness (i.e. with lux levels no higher

than 0.5) will be required.

5.11 The Council applies the National Space Standards 2 for new dwellings, and these

would need to be adhered to (see the Technical Requirements as well as the

GIA/storage requirements in Table 1of the document).

1 https://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CIL-charging-schedule-1.pdf 2

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/52453 1/160519_Nationally_Described_Space_Standard____Final_Web_version.pdf

8 | P a g e


5.12 The Council requires 17% of new dwellings proposed to be built to M4(2) standard

(accessible housing). This will need to be incorporated into the design of the

scheme and a condition would be imposed to ensure the units are delivered.

5.13 The design of the scheme should reflect the principles set out in the Residential

Guidelines SPD – Sections 1 3 and 2 4 .

5.14 Parking will need to comply with the adopted parking standards 5 . Garages can

count towards the parking provision but only where they comply with the size

requirements in the adopted Parking Standards SPD.

5.15 Secure and fully enclosed cycle storage in a convenient/accessible location will be

required. Garages that comply with the size requirements can be used for cycle


Application Report/Survey Requirements

5.16 An outline application is advocated, with access to be considered and layout,

scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration. Illustrative

information comprising an indicative site layout with a housing schedule and

indicating soft planting/ecological mitigation/enhancement principles; a street-

scene elevation; and sections should be provided.

5.17 An outline application would need to be supported by the following reports:

Planning Statement;

▪ A drainage strategy (Sustainable Urban Drainage);

▪ A tree survey, arboricultural implications assessment, method statement, and

tree protection plan;

3 https://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/residential-design-guide-supplementary- planning-document-part-1.pdf 4 https://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/residential-design-guide-supplementary- planning-document-part-2.pdf 5 https://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/parking-standards-supplementary- planning-document.pdf

9 | P a g e


▪ Ecological Surveys (a Phase 1 survey and potentially protected species

surveys – these would need to be undertaken between May and


Indicative Lighting Strategy;

▪ A desk-based archaeological assessment (although the existing building and

hard-standing is likely to have impacted on any surviving archaeological


A Transport Statement;

▪ Potentially a Coal Mining Risk Assessment;

▪ A Flood Risk Assessment should there be evidence of local flooding/drainage



10 | P a g e

www.hollismorgan.co.uk | post@hollismorgan.co.uk

TEL | 0117 973 6565 | 9 Waterloo Street, Clifton, Bristol BS8 4BT www.stokesmorgan.co.uk | info@stokesmorgan.co.uk TEL | 01275 390 648 | Kestrel Court, 1 Harbour Road, Portishead BS20 7AN


Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online