Appeal 3286791

The appeal is dismissed.

I have been referred to policies in the Submission Draft Worthing Local Plan. I understand that this document has not been independently examined. Therefore, I am not satisfied that these policies will be adopted in the form that they are put to me. As such I afford them limited weight.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of nearby occupiers with particular regard to overlooking, light and any overbearing effect.

The appeal site is located on the northern side of [address]. Its immediate setting is mainly characterised by modest detached bungalows with pitched roofs, some with accommodation in the roof, fronting [address]. This includes no. 4, which is a smaller dwelling than others in the street, although I am not persuaded that it is likely to change. Front boundaries are generally low walls. The adjoining property at no. 8 is a traditional pitched roof two storey building, and there is another two storey block much further down the road which fronts [address]. However, these features are uncommon and as such are not a prevailing part of the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the low level built form with separation above ground level results in a pleasant sense of openness. Furthermore, the main elevations to [address] behind low boundary treatment create a consistent pattern of development in this regard, which is an attractive feature of this location.

The southern side of the road has a markedly different character with the Waterfront development which includes 2-3 storey houses, with differing roof forms including the flat roof at Aurora. Nevertheless, the location and context of the appeal site is notably separate to this development. There is also a second floor flat roof extension under construction at [address]. This is located away from the host property, beyond the junction with [address], and is therefore also clearly distinct from the appeal site and its setting.

The appeal site backs onto [address], with a garage and hardstanding accessed from this road. Along the southern side of [address] are generally secondary rear gardens, outbuildings and accesses to [address] properties. Consequently, the existing arrangement is appropriate to this character.

The proposed development would create a two storey dwelling fronting [address], which occupies the majority of the width of the plot at ground and first floor with a flat roof. The first floor element would extend close to the boundaries of the site at full height which would harmfully undermine the sense of spaciousness between plots above ground floor level. Although there is a small single storey element adjacent to no. 4, this does not diminish the overall scale of the proposed alterations. The flat roof, two storey glazed form of the elevations would also be at odds with the surrounding development. The resultant development would be dominant and visually jarring in this context.

Furthermore, the development would result in a secondary rear elevation and back garden facing towards [address]. Planting is proposed to this boundary, however the proposed high timber fence directly behind is likely to be apparent. These features would erode the relationship between the appeal site and [address] and would unacceptably undermine the regular pattern of frontage development in this location.

Given the character to this part of [address], the removal of the ancillary parking area is not a benefit to its character and appearance.

Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, in this respect, it would be contrary to Policy 16 of the [name] 2011 which requires new development to be of good design including responding positively to the important aspects of local character, amongst other things.

The main outlook from the front windows at [address] is across its garden. However, due to the angle of the property and the proximity of the neighbouring dwelling, the proposed 2 storey side elevation to [site address] would be highly prominent in these views. I am also provided with details of a sun path shadow analysis in late May, although this is not reflective of light that would typically be available at other times of the year. As such, the proximity, height and forward projection of the proposed dwelling would create an unacceptably overbearing relationship as well as a likely loss of light to these windows.

The main outlook from the proposed balcony would be across the host property’s rear garden. 1.4m high walls are proposed to both sides. These would significantly limit direct views towards adjoining gardens and due to the angle of view it is unlikely that views into neighbouring windows would be possible. Whilst peripheral views of the neighbouring front gardens may occur, taking into account their semi-public position this would not be harmful. Additionally, given the distance from Aurora the proposed balcony would not create an inappropriate level of overlooking to this property. Therefore, I do not find harm with regard to overlooking. However, the lack of harm in this regard is a neutral factor.

Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of existing occupiers with particular regard to light and an overbearing effect. Therefore, in this respect, it would be contrary to Policies H16 and H18 of the Worthing Local Plan (2003). These require development not to reduce amenity for local residents and extensions not to result in an unacceptable degree of overshadowing or have an overbearing effect.

The appeal scheme is a lower height than a previously refused scheme1 and incorporates a balcony set back. Nevertheless, even with these features, I have identified the harm set out above.

I am not persuaded that [address] has a notable issue with traffic or car parking. Furthermore, the traffic movements and car parking to [address] associated with the existing property are likely to be very limited. Therefore, any benefit from the proposed development in this regard would be minimal.

The proposed development would provide increased natural surveillance to [address], albeit the road is already reasonably visible from existing first floor windows. It has been designed to achieve solar gain due to its aspect, accommodate the maximum number of photovoltaic panels and to provide natural ventilation. This would minimise the use of non-renewable energy for future occupiers and this is a benefit of the proposed development. However, taking into account the size of the proposed development, these benefits are limited in their scale.

On the other hand, the proposed development would result in public and permanent harm to the character and appearance of the area as well as unacceptable living conditions to the occupiers of [address]. As such there are multiple factors that, overall, would result in considerable harm. Consequently, this would not be outweighed by the limited benefits set out above.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.