Appeal 3321915

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form in the interests of clarity. I consider that the amended description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted the amended description in the heading above.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property Banstead.

The site is located within a predominantly residential area where property designs vary. The properties are predominantly set back from the road with a mix of boundary treatments.

The appeal site property is set back on the plot on a similar building line to the neighbouring property, Banstead. A detached outbuilding exists to the front of the plot. The proposed development comprises a single storey extension to link the existing property with the outbuilding.

The appeal site is at a slightly higher ground level to that of the neighbouring property, Banstead. The proposed development would be set off the shared boundary and includes an asymmetrical roof which slopes away from the boundary with Banstead.

Due to the relationship between properties, the narrow plot of Banstead and the other properties adjacent Banstead the proposed development would be dominant and oppressive to the occupiers of the neighbouring property. The proposed development would add mass to the built form resulting in a tunnelling effect and sense of enclosure for the occupiers of Banstead which would be overbearing.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of area. There is conflict with Policy DM29 of the Chelmsford Local Plan (2020) which seeks to protect the living environment of occupiers of any nearby residential property.

The Council in the reason for refusal contend that the proposed development is contrary to The [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2036 (2021) (the Neighbourhood Plan). I disagree. The Neighbourhood Plan, objective 04 (referenced in the Planning Officer’s Report) relates to the design quality and does not appear to address the effect of a development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

The Appellant has highlighted that the development is proposed for future consideration, ability, and adaption to provide family-care to relatives and the occupiers of the appeal site. I have not been provided with demonstrable evidence to convince me that there is no alternative in terms of development which could meet the objectives of the Appellant. I therefore give this limited weight.

My attention has drawn to planning contraventions and issues associated with the neighbouring property Banstead, by the Appellant. It is not within my scope to consider planning contraventions or civil issues as part of this appeal process.

The Appellant has drawn my attention to developments in the area, which has been approved. Whilst the Appellant has provided images of developments in terms of form, design and relationship to neighbouring properties I do not find these comparable to the proposal before me. Notwithstanding this each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal.

With regard to the potential erection of a 2m high fence. I have not been provided with evidence to confirm that this fence would be permitted development as suggested by the Appellant. Notwithstanding this I am not persuaded that a boundary treatment up to 2m in height would have a greater effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Banstead than the proposed development.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.