Appeal 3264274

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises land to the rear of Uplands, a large detached house that fronts onto [address]. The site is enclosed by mature trees on 3 sides and slopes down from Uplands to [address], a private road that runs parallel to the railway line in the cutting beyond. The section of [address] to either side of the appeal site includes detached houses of various styles set in spacious grounds surrounded by mature trees. This gives the area surrounding the appeal site a notably spacious and verdant appearance. This is also a key characteristic of the wider area which has been designated by the Council as a Residential Area of Special Character (RASC).

Planning permission was refused in 2015 for a 2-dwelling scheme on the appeal site and a subsequent appeal was dismissed in August 20161. The observations made, and conclusions reached, by my colleague in respect of the 2016 appeal are matters to which I attach significant weight. I note that planning permission was granted in 2016 for a single dwelling within the site2.

The appeal proposal would comprise the erection of a pair of 4-bedroom detached houses. These would be partly built into the slope of the site with integral double garages, gyms and swimming pools at lower ground floor level 1 Appeal ref: APP/L3625/W/16/3146983 dated 5 August 2016 2 Application ref: 16/0075/F and living accommodation on the upper 2 floors. The houses would have separate and independent driveways from [address] and car parking/turning areas between the houses and the road. The provision of the driveways would necessitate the removal of a number of trees on the boundary of the site next to [address], albeit the majority of the trees would be retained.

The proposed dwellings would occupy plots that would be significantly narrower than those that prevail in this portion of [address] and the gaps between the houses and their side boundaries would be narrower than is generally the case. As such the proposal would not reflect the pattern of development in the immediate area and would result in a comparatively cramped form of development at odds with the spacious quality of this portion of [address]. In this respect I concur with my colleague’s observations, which I note related to a pair of houses with smaller footprints than now proposed.

Mature trees and vegetation give large parts of [address], including the appeal site, a notably verdant character. In some parts of the road where development has occurred, the road has a more suburban feel. The proposal would retain most of the trees within the appeal site. However, I share the Council’s concern that, due to the scale of development proposed, its closeness to the boundaries and the level of enclosure and overshadowing created by the trees, over time pressure to prune the trees would result in the diminution of the verdant character and therefore additional harm to the appearance of the area.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that, due to the siting, bulk and scale of development proposed the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore fails to accord with Policies DES1 and DES3 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan (2019) (DMP). The former requires new development to respect the character of the surrounding area and have due regard to layout, density and plot size, amongst other matters. The latter seeks to prevent development that results in the harmful erosion of the spacing between buildings or leads to an over-dominance of the built form within a plot.

The proposal is also contrary to the aims of the Council's Local Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004) and DMP Policy NHE3 which seeks the retention of unprotected important trees of amenity value. I note that the appeal proposal would make a modest contribution to the supply of housing and the appeal site has reasonably good access to public transport and local facilities and therefore the economic and social objective of sustainable development as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) may be met. However, for the reasons set out above, the environmental objective of the Framework would not be satisfied and therefore there is conflict with the Framework.

The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to DMP Policy NHE9. As the appeal site is not located within a conservation area and there is nothing before me to indicate that it is close to any other heritage assets, I find no conflict with this policy.

The appellant has referred to a number of recent planning permissions and appeal decisions and has provided information on the plot sizes of a selection of properties in the area. As each planning application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits having regard to the particular physical characteristics of each site and its context, I attach limited weight to these matters. I note that the proposed dwellings would provide high quality living environments for future occupiers and that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring houses. I am also satisfied that the development would not give rise to highway safety issues. However, the lack of harm in these respects does not outweigh the clear harm to the character and appearance of the area set out above.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.