Appeal 3271847

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the new dwellings with regard to private outdoor space and outlook.

The appeal site accommodates a vacant former [name] of [name] and the proposed scheme would convert the existing building into three dwellings. Units 1 and 2 would be two bedroom two-storey mews houses, each intended for three people, while Unit 3 would be a one bedroom single storey studio apartment with a mezzanine level, intended for one person.

Policy DE3 of the Torbay Local Plan 2015 (LP), specifies that all development should be designed to provide a good level of amenity for future residents and this will be assessed having regard to several criteria. One of the criteria is provision for useable amenity space, including gardens and outdoor amenity areas. The supporting text emphasises that the Council wishes to ensure all new homes meet high standards of residential accommodation in terms of quality of life for residents and that as a guideline, a minimum space of 55 sqm for houses and 10 sqm for apartments (which could be provided communally) will be sought.

Similarly, Policy THW4 of the Torquay Neighbourhood Plan 2019 (NP), specifies that all new houses shall have not less than 20 sqm of outside space (excluding space for cars or parking) and must have garden areas with not less than 10 sqm of space suitable for growing plants or the equivalent allocated communal growing space within easy walk. Flats or apartments must have either a balcony of not less than 10 sqm and as appropriate to the size of the home or a communal green area of not less than 10 sqm per unit within the curtilage of the property. The supporting text emphasises that many new homes in Torquay have been conversions of large properties into small poor quality living spaces without access to outside space and that a key principle of the NP is to require new housing developments to include adequate outdoor space, such as front or back gardens or balconies.

The submitted plans show the provision of a small shared courtyard that would be achieved through the demolition of part of the existing building. However, as the courtyard would provide access to Units 2 and 3 and incorporate the bike and bin stores for all three dwellings, it would primarily function as a service area. The appellant does not challenge the Council’s view that the scheme would not provide any private outdoor amenity space and highlights that the site is within walking distance of several high-quality areas of public open space, with many existing properties including residential conversions having similar arrangements.

Notwithstanding the proximity of the public open spaces, they would not adequately compensate for the lack of any on-site private amenity space, whereby future occupants could immediately access an outdoor sitting area or have space to hang washing out to dry, for example. The good level of amenity for future residents sought by Policy DE3 of the LP would therefore not be achieved, particularly in relation to Units 1 and 2 which would be capable of accommodating a small family. Furthermore, although many existing properties do not have private outdoor amenity space, the clear aim of Policy THW4 of the NP is to ensure that new development is of a higher quality by having access to such space. Moreover, there is no evidence before me of the planning history of the existing properties to indicate whether they were considered against the same development plan policies, in particular the policies of the NP, as the

It is acknowledged the supporting text of Policy DE3 states that new dwellings should make provision for external amenity/garden space `where possible’ and in this regard the site has particular design constraints given its close relationship to neighbouring residential properties. Nevertheless, the constraints are not such that they would prevent the provision of any external amenity space on the site and the opportunity to make some provision is significantly enhanced by the Council’s decision not to seek any on-site car parking, thereby departing from the requirements of Policies TA3 and DE3 of the LP and Policy TH9 of the NP.

A further criterion of Policy DE3 is that new residential development will need to have particular regard to outlook and in this regard the Council raises concerns about the bedroom windows of Unit 2. The two windows would be fairly narrow with the lower two thirds being opaque glazed and fixed shut, up to around 1.7m above the finished floor level of the rooms. Only the upper third would be clear glazed and with the facility to open. Consequently, the outlook from the bedrooms would be severely restricted and limited to small high level views towards the sky.

While such an outlook may be appropriate for secondary bedroom windows, being the sole window in each case it would result in the bedrooms having an oppressive poor quality environment. Furthermore, the high level positioning of the bedroom windows of Unit 1 would result in a similar poor quality environment, notwithstanding the windows being wider than those of Unit 2. The fact the two properties would have vaulted first floor living accommodation with large rooflights would not mitigate the particularly poor quality environment experienced in the ground floor bedrooms.

In light of the above, it is concluded the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the new dwellings with regard to private outdoor space and outlook. As such, it would conflict with Policy DE3 of the LP and Policy THW4 of the NP, the relevant elements of which are outlined above. It would also conflict with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which expects development to promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users.

As the Council confirms it cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework must be applied. This sets out that planning permission should be granted, subject to two tests. The first test is whether the application of policies in the Framework which protect areas of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development. However, the defined protected areas are not relevant to this case.

The second test is whether any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Paragraph 213 of the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing development plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

The Framework expects development to promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users. It therefore supports Policy DE3 of the LP and Policy THW4 of the NP which seek to ensure development is designed to provide a good level of amenity for future residents with regard to private outdoor space and outlook.

Consequently, even when taking account of the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, the acknowledged important contribution that small sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and the Council’s housing land supply situation, the arising adverse impacts in terms of the proposal’s conflict with the LP and the NP (Policies DE3 and THW4), as well as the Framework’s expectation that developments provide a high standard of amenity for future users, should be afforded significant weight in the determination of the appeal.

Set against this, the benefits of the proposed development include the provision of three dwellings on previously developed land located within one of the [name]. The dwellings would be good examples of low carbon development in respect of their sustainable location, retention of the majority of the embodied carbon in the existing building and the low energy consumption design measures, including opportunities for solar heat gain via the large rooflights. There would also be the economic benefits associated with the conversion works and the subsequent occupation of the housing, including spending at shops and services within the surrounding area. However, as the proposal is for just three houses, it would make a limited contribution to the housing supply and the local economy.

The likely net biodiversity gains would also be limited, notably derived from a planter containing soft landscaping along with three bat access panels, three swift nesting boxes and three bee bricks. The partial demolition would improve the relationship with 1 [name] but the effect would be marginal given the front elevation of that property is set further back in the street than the existing hall. Through the reduction in the volume of the existing building and improvements to the appearance of the remainder, the scheme would have a positive impact on the visual character of the site and the setting of the Babbacombe Downs Conservation Area. Nevertheless, as the existing building reads as a historic part of the urban fabric and it is visually not in a dilapidated condition, the positive impacts would be modest. Accordingly, the cumulative benefits of the proposal are only afforded moderate weight.

Consequently, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission, namely the unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.