The scheme involved accessing part of the development from the cul-de-sac, which contained 21 houses. The appellants argued that the environmental capacity of the road was approximately 200 passenger cars per day. Since neither scheme would lead to more than another 28 cars using the road daily, they claimed that its environmental capacity would not be breached.
The inspector found this argument unconvincing and decided that the methodology used was somewhat crude in its ability to predict the likely impact on the amenity of residents. The cul-de-sac was currently quiet and secluded and the additional traffic would be disruptive by virtue of a combination of noise, fumes, headlights and general intrusiveness, he ruled.
This objection was of sufficient weight to overcome the advantages of redeveloping a brownfield site in a sustainable location, he determined.
He held that the aim of redeveloping sustainably located brownfield sites should normally be expected of any housing scheme, including the provision of affordable units.
DCS No: 33050707; Inspector: David Smith; Inquiry.