Appeal 3332128

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council considers that the proposed development could be capable of independent use, given its size and the facilities it would contain. Nonetheless, I have considered the proposal on the basis of the description of development for which the appellant applied since, if the appeal were to be allowed, it would be this for which planning permission was granted.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) highway safety, with particular regard to parking.

The character of the wider area is predominantly residential, comprising properties of varying age and appearance. Number [site address] is one of a group of properties which front onto [address] but have relatively long and narrow rear gardens which extend towards [address] to the north. The northern end of those gardens abut the edge of [address] and contribute to the open character close to its junction with the roundabout.

This group of gardens are bound to the west by a group of tall conifer trees and they appear as typical residential gardens, over which the rear elevations of properties on [address] can be seen from [address]. They include areas of hard surfacing for parking of vehicles as well as a number of low level structures such as sheds and car ports including those on the appeal site. However, these do not rise significantly higher than the surrounding boundary treatments, have limited visibility from the surrounding area and appear typical of a garden setting.

By contrast, the proposed building would be substantially larger in both its footprint and height than other structures which exist within this group of gardens. Its eaves level would sit consistently above the height of the surrounding fencing and its building materials would be akin to those of the main house rather than a garden structure. When considered in combination, these factors would result in the development appearing visually prominent in views from [address] and around the junction, and heavily at odds with the character of this group of gardens and the surrounding pattern of development.

For these reasons the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policies DE1 and DE11 of the Rushmoor Local Plan 2019 (the LP) which require among other things, that development respects the character and appearance of the local area, and is not harmful to the character of the area in terms of relationships and integration with existing buildings and spaces and impact on the street scene.

The proposal would entail the removal of the existing car port at the back of the site, which is currently used for storage. Three off street parking spaces would remain at the front of the site with access onto [address], although one space could not be accessed independently.

While the introduction of further sleeping accommodation within the proposal could potentially increase car ownership and use at the site, the Council accept that the quantum of off street car parking spaces would be suitable for a house of this size and that its parking standards are a maximum. For these reasons, and as I have considered the proposal on the basis of the description of development above, the proposal would be acceptable in this regard.

The proposal would therefore be acceptable in terms of its parking provision and would not cause harm to highway safety as a consequence. It would comply with Policy IN2 of the LP insofar as it requires development to provide appropriate car parking provision.

The proposal would make use of previously developed land in an established built up area, and there would be some economic benefits arising from the construction process and on going expenditure into the local economy by its occupants. However, given the scale of the proposal and as it would be ancillary to the main house and occupied by family members, these benefits would not amount to considerations of sufficient weight to outweigh the conflict found with the development plan. While the proposal may be policy compliant in other respects, for example in terms of its effects on the nearby protected tree and on the living conditions of nearby occupants, these matters are neutral and do not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The Council’s third reason for refusal relates to the effect of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), which is designated for its importance to bird populations. The appeal site is within 5km of this SPA, which is an area where residential development has been identified as having potential effects on its ecological integrity, and Policy NE1 of the LP relates to the effects of net new dwellings. Notwithstanding this, Regulation 63(1) of the Habitats Regulations1 indicates the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal. As the appeal is dismissed on other grounds it is not therefore necessary to address this in any further detail.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.