Appeal 6000435

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] (No 63), with regard to outlook and loss of light.

The appeal site comprises part of the residential garden of No. [site address] (the host property), a detached dwelling located within the rural settlement of Anslow. The site is a narrow plot, positioned in between the host property and the neighbouring property No 63, within a row of residential properties that extend along the road.

Residential dwellings primarily front [address] and range in age, style, scale, and appearance, set within varying plot sizes. However, many of the houses largely have a traditional, simple design, constructed with red facing brick and pitched tiled roofs, which is a consistent theme along the road and adds uniformity to the street scene.

Contrary to this current uniformity, the proposed dwelling would have two gable features on the front elevation, one which would markedly protrude forward of the other and the walls would, in part, be finished with render. As a consequence, it would neither have a contemporary or traditional design. Instead, the design, particularly the front elevation, would appear overly fussy. Similarly, the roof arrangement of the proposed dwelling, as a result of the gable features, would have a contrived appearance compared to the largely simple roof design of other houses along the road. As such, although the roof has deliberately been designed to reduce the scale of the proposal, its complicated appearance would contribute to the incongruous design of the proposed development.

Furthermore, due to the sub-division of the original plot, the proposed house, with its narrow footprint and forward projection, would appear cramped within the site. It would follow a similar building line to the existing row of dwellings along the road but, even so, the proposal would have a poor visual relationship with the host property and the adjacent houses. Therefore, it would be an inharmonious development within the context of the site and street scene, as opposed to a high-quality infill development.

My attention has been drawn to a previous planning permission (the previous permission) for a side and rear extension1 to the host property. The previous permission is for modest extensions to the host property, with a simple design, set away from the side boundary. As such, it is not comparable to the appeal scheme for a new dwelling, set forward of the host property and positioned close to the side boundary. Likewise, although reference has been made to other infill developments on [address], it is the detail and specific context of any development which determines whether it is acceptable in practice. Having considered the design and layout of this proposal, and its effect on the character and appearance of this area, for the reasons given, I consider that there would be unacceptable harm. Given this, the previous permission and other examples do not add weight in favour of the development. Accordingly, as I am required to do, I have determined the case before me on its own merits.

For the collective reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies SP1, SP24 and DP1 of the East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan, 2015 (the Local Plan), which together, amongst other things, seek high quality design which contributes positively to the area and integrates with the existing environment and context.

The proposed development would be built up close to the shared boundary with No 63, which is set on a slightly lower ground level than the appeal site. No 63 has a small single storey flat roof extension close to the boundary. The extension has a window in the side elevation that faces the appeal site and a rear window close to the side boundary which has an outlook over the garden.

The main parties have not identified what internal rooms the windows serve, but the location and the size, would suggest that they do not serve habitable rooms, or they are secondary windows to habitable rooms, rather than principal windows of the dwelling.

A large section of the side gable of the proposed house would extend along the side boundary. However, there would be a gap between the proposed dwelling and the shared boundary with No 63. In addition, the side gable of the proposal would not have a two-storey height, and the pitch of the roof would slope away from the 1 Council reference: HO/10214/018/CEH - Erection of a part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension and the formation of a basement area shared boundary. In combination, and despite the slight difference in ground levels, the above factors would ensure that a significant overbearing impact would not be caused to the outlook from the neighbouring windows. Likewise, and for similar reasons, the proposed development would not have a significantly increased enclosing or overbearing effect on the rear garden.

The scale and orientation of the proposed dwelling, as well as its juxtaposition with the windows and garden of No 63 would ensure that a significant loss of light would not be caused to the occupiers of the neighbouring property also. Therefore, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would be satisfactorily protected.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and loss of light. As such, it would not conflict with Policies SP1 and DP3 of the Local Plan, which together, and amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is designed to protect the amenity of the occupiers of residential properties nearby. Particularly in terms of an overbearing impact and loss of light to principal windows or the private amenity space of adjacent dwellings.

The proposal has been put forward as [name] and [name] (self-build). The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at Paragraph 73 b) supports small sites to come forward for self-build housing. Nevertheless, a signed legal agreement to secure the proposal as a self-build plot has not been submitted with the appeal. As such, without an appropriate means to secure the development as self-build, I attach limited weight to the matter.

Although not secured as a self-build plot, an additional infill dwelling on under-utilised garden land would represent an effective and efficient use of land and contribute to boosting the supply of new housing in a sustainable rural location, as referenced in the Framework. A smaller two bedroom, adaptable and accessible, energy efficient home would also help the appellants to downsize whilst remaining in the area. There would also be social and economic benefits to local services during the construction and occupancy phases without conflict with neighbouring land uses. However, these benefits would be limited by virtue of the proposal only adding one additional dwelling to the housing supply in the area.

Taking the above matters into consideration, and notwithstanding my conclusions on living conditions, the benefits would not outweigh the identified harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area.

Overall, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

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