Appeal 6000467

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council refused the application for three reasons as set out in the decision notice. The second of these reasons related to overlooking and the loss of privacy to [address] from first floor windows. The appellant has submitted amended plans as part of their appeal, that provide a revised design for the proposed dwelling through the removal of two front facing dormer windows and their replacement with four roof lights. The Council has confirmed that the amended plans, subject to planning conditions, would overcome the second reason for refusal.

Whilst an appeal should not be used to evolve a scheme, I have considered the plans in response to the Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 judgement. As the amended plans do not involve a substantial difference to the appeal, I have considered whether accepting the information would cause procedural unfairness to interested parties. Adjacent occupiers were consulted on the original set of plans, and four objections were received by the Council. A further objection was received following notification of the appeal.

As the plans provide further detail regarding land ownership, parking provision at a larger scale and removes dormer windows from the proposal thereby reducing any potential overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers, the acceptance of the proposed revisions would not unfairly deprive those entitled to be consulted on an application, the opportunity to make a representation. My decision is therefore based on the revised drawings 0246-P-001, 0246-P-005 revision A, 0246-P-006 revision A and 0246-P-007. I am satisfied that these plans address the second reason for refusal.

The Council has drawn my attention to the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan Review 2020-2040 [name] (February 2025). Due to the current stage in the adoption process, the policies of review are of limited weight.

Based on the preliminary matters, the main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to parking provision and highway manoeuvres for existing and future occupiers.

The appeal site is located within Telford which is the principle focus for housing development for the Council. Subject to consideration of the main issues, residential development is therefore acceptable in principle.

[address] forms part of a larger modern housing estate of two storey semi-detached and detached dwellings. The roads within the estate, including [address], are characterised by dwellings fronting the roads with garden space to the front and driveways to the side. Most of the roads within the estate include dwellings that are accessed via small, shared driveways that generally only serve two or three dwellings. Most dwellings have gaps between them allowing for views towards development to the rear.

The existing property at [site address] (number 4) accords with the pattern of development outlined above. Number 4 is the last dwelling serviced by a shared driveway which is one vehicle wide and currently services three properties. As a result, the property is adjacent to the vehicle turning area and has a small garden to the rear and a side garden that runs alongside the turning area of the shared driveway. The side garden, whilst enclosed, provides a spacious and open feeling to the shared drive and number 4, allowing views towards the properties in The Brambles and [address] to the rear. This reinforces the sense of spaciousness of local housing plots and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would sever the existing plot. The proposal would sit parallel to the shared driveway turning area and be perpendicular to the other dwellings that use the drive. Its orientation to the turning area of the driveway, whilst being the same orientation as [address], would be at odds with the orientation of the dwellings at numbers 2, 3 and [site address] which share the driveway.

Due to its significant setback from [address], the proposed dwelling would sit outside of the established building lines within the street. As such, its location, at the end of the shared driveway, would be incongruous with the existing street pattern and at odds with the prevailing pattern of development within the estate. The proposed dwelling would also increase the number of properties that the shared driveway would serve to the detriment of the street layout and character of the area.

A dwelling in this location would remove the gap between the appeal property and its neighbour at [address], and views between the properties that reinforce the sense of spaciousness. The proposed dwelling, due to its position on the appeal site and at the end of the shared driveway, adjacent to the turning area, would have no front garden space, which would also be out of character with the surrounding development.

For the above reasons, the proposed dwelling, because of its siting and orientation, would be incongruous with the prevailing pattern of development, out of character with the surrounding area and would fail to reinforce the existing street pattern and layout. Consequently, the proposal would fail to comply with Policies SP1, SP4 and BE1 of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 (the TWLP) which amongst other things, supports development where it complies with other plan policies; respects and responds positively to its context and enhances the quality of the local built and natural environment; and preserves and reinforces historic street patterns, layout, traditional frontage and boundary treatments.

The existing property at number 4 has a garage and on-plot parking for one vehicle, which is accessed from the shared driveway within a small residential cul-de-sac. The amended plan 0246-P-006 revision A illustrates the existing and proposed parking at a larger scale than the originally submitted site plan. The parking provision available to number 4 would remain as existing and as such, sufficient on-plot parking would be retained for the existing dwelling. The new dwelling would have provision for two vehicles on plot, parallel with the parking to number 4, in a tandem formation. These spaces would meet the required width of three metres.

On assessment of the amended site plan, whilst not illustrating tracking manoeuvres, the existing occupiers parking at number 4 would be able to reverse off their property into the turning area of the shared drive and leave in a forward gear. However, this would rely on no more than two vehicles being parked at the proposed dwelling and, space within the shared driveway turning area being available. The manoeuvring vehicle from number 4 would also need to reverse into the shared driveway which would be directly in front of the new dwelling’s front door.

The proposed dwelling’s tandem parking would require the second parked vehicle to reverse into the turning area of the shared driveway to allow the first vehicle to exit the property. This may require the first vehicle to cross third party land at number 4 to leave in a forward gear. Should a third vehicle park at the proposed dwelling, this would likely prevent vehicles from both the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling at number 4, being able to leave in a forward gear.

Based on the above, the proposed car parking layout would be awkward and constrained due to the dwelling’s position on site and the existing shared driveway. The nature of the car parking layout is likely to result in vehicles being unable to exit the site in a forward gear, due to the constrained manoeuvring area for both the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling at number 4. The proposal would therefore increase the likelihood of vehicles reversing. Owing to the restricted visibility when carrying out such a manoeuvre, this would increase the risk of vehicles coming into conflict with other highway users and pedestrians accessing the new dwelling, adversely affecting highway safety.

The existing shared access is one vehicle wide and whilst the proposed development would not alter this, it would increase its use. The constrained nature of the access, parking and turning alongside further intensification of the driveway’s use, could result in vehicles waiting on the highway or footway to enter or exit the site. [address] is a small residential cul-de-sac that would not be subject to large volumes of traffic, I find that the proposed development has not been designed to maximise levels of safety for cars, drivers, and pedestrians and would not function well.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would harm highway safety, with regard to parking provision and highway manoeuvres for existing and future occupiers, contrary to Policies SP1, SP4, C3 and C5 of the TWLP, which, amongst other matters, seek to prevent such harm and mitigate site specific highway issues.

The appellant has drawn my attention to two examples locally where further housing has been accommodated within the existing residential pattern of development. The Brambles is located to the rear of the appeal site where two extra dwellings have been accommodated. The new dwellings are two storey and on the same orientation and similar building line as the existing dwellings. [name] is a single storey bungalow, on a similar building line to the adjacent dwellings, which sits adjacent to [address]. It is located at the end of an open and spacious service road that serves two detached dwellings. In this context, the bungalow appears part of the original estate plan.

Accordingly, the properties referred to me have a different context to the appeal site and complement their local context. Therefore, there is no direct comparison to be made between these that weighs in the appeal’s favour.

The appellant disputes the assertion on the Council’s decision notice with respect to the local planning authority acting in a positive and proactive way. However, these matters have had no material bearing on my consideration of the proposal which has been assessed on its own merits based on the specific evidence before me.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be dismissed.