Road capacity and local living under NPF4: the Houston appeal.

What the reporter decided

The site is allocated for housing in the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021. The plan gave an indicative capacity of 59 homes, but the reporter found nothing in policy that made that figure a ceiling. At about 14 dwellings per hectare, 100 homes reflected the density of the surrounding village, and 59 would have been an exceptionally low density of about eight per hectare (notice of intention, paragraphs 4 to 7).

The committee's concerns, taken from the recording of its debate, were overdevelopment, pressure on the local GP surgery and a lack of road capacity (paragraph 16). The reporter dealt with each on the evidence. On transport, the conclusion was that the site is sustainably located within easy walking distance of public transport and local services, and that there was unlikely to be any adverse impact on road safety (paragraph 28).

How the transport evidence was assessed

The reporter identified three relevant policies: NPF4 policy 15 on local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods, NPF4 policy 18 on infrastructure first, and local plan policy I1, which gives priority to sustainable travel and the safe operation of the road network (paragraph 22). The assessment under these policies does not turn on whether a defined threshold of harm is crossed. The question is whether the proposal accords with the development plan read as a whole, with NPF4 prevailing over the 2021 plan where the two are incompatible (paragraph 1).

1. Capacity. The transport assessment predicted 55 car movements in the morning peak, within the capacity of the road network and nearby junctions. The council's roads team did not dispute the traffic generation or the capacity of the network, and raised no objection subject to conditions (paragraphs 25 and 28).
2. Local living. Within 800 metres of the site were a high school, a primary school, bus stops, a shop, a GP surgery, a pharmacy and other services. The reporter treated 800 metres as broadly representative of a 20-minute round trip on foot, and concluded that the site met the local living aspirations of policy 15 (paragraph 26).
3. The routes themselves. The reporter walked them. The bus stops, with a frequent service to Glasgow, were about seven minutes from the site access, and the schools between seven and ten minutes. The decision acknowledges that journeys from the furthest homes may slightly exceed ten minutes, but finds them genuinely capable of reducing car use (paragraph 27).
4. Improvements. New footways on Barochan Road and a route around the war memorial would address what the reporter described as a significant pinch point with poor pedestrian provision. A raised table at the new junction would help reduce speeds on the approach to the village. These were secured by condition (paragraphs 24, 25 and 27; conditions 10 and 11).

After the notice of intention, the community council asked for a construction traffic condition, including surveys of buildings along the construction route through the conservation area. The reporter added a construction traffic management condition but declined the building surveys, finding they would not meet the six tests for conditions in Circular 4/98 (decision notice, preliminary matters).

The council’s case and the expenses claim

The council did not lodge a written appeal statement. It directed the reporter to the recording of the committee debate (notice of intention, preliminary matters). The single reason for refusal did not cite any development plan policy.

The expenses decision is instructive. The reporter did not find the council's conduct unreasonable in respect of its concerns about services and infrastructure, and held that the omission of policy references was not, in itself, unreasonable. Having watched the recording, the reporter was satisfied that the debate had been framed by NPF4 policies including policy 13 on sustainable transport, and that the appellant could understand why the scheme had been refused on grounds of overdevelopment, services and infrastructure (expenses decision, paragraphs 6 and 9).

The award was made on a narrower point. The reason for refusal referred to harm to the Houston Conservation Area, but that issue had not been debated at committee and no explanation was ever given. The council was found partly liable for the appellant's expenses in dealing with that issue only.

The distinction is worth noting. A refusal on road capacity grounds was not, of itself, unreasonable conduct. It failed on the merits, because the evidence before the reporter, including the council's own roads team's position, did not support it.

Points of interest and doubt

The treatment of 800 metres as a proxy for a 20-minute round trip is a practical reading of policy 15, and one that will be familiar to practitioners. It is not, however, a fixed standard in NPF4, which describes 20-minute neighbourhoods in terms of meeting daily needs within a reasonable distance. A reporter in a different setting, for example with steeper routes or poorer footways, might reasonably weigh the same distance differently.

The reporter's own walks did significant work. That is consistent with decisions elsewhere in this series, but it means the outcome rests partly on observations at a single visit. An appellant or council wishing to rely on journey times would be well advised to present them in evidence rather than leave them to the site inspection.

Finally, the decision does not suggest that local concern about traffic in Houston was unfounded in any general sense. It records that the evidence before the reporter did not show a capacity problem attributable to this development, and that no party produced evidence to the contrary.

Practical points

• Address the development plan as a whole. NPF4 policies 13, 15 and 18, read with the local development plan, set the questions, and the reporter's conclusion was expressed as overall accordance with the plan.
• Present walking times as evidence. Routes, times and the services reached should be set out in the transport assessment, rather than left to the reporter's site visit.
• Address pinch points directly. The footway improvements at the war memorial were part of the reason the reporter found the routes acceptable.
• For councils: a committee may depart from officer advice, but a refusal on transport grounds needs evidence capable of supporting it, and every reason for refusal needs to be explained. A recording of the debate may suffice to show why a decision was made, but it will not supply evidence that was never presented.
• For objectors and community councils: specific, deliverable requests can succeed. Here, a construction traffic condition was added at the community council's request, while a broader request for building surveys was declined.