Appeal 6000627

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area • The effect of the proposal on highway safety • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No 78a and [address], and No 273 [site address] ; and of future occupiers of the new dwelling, with particular regard to privacy, light, outlook, and disturbance.

The appeal site lies on a small cul-de-sac and private road, and is accessed from [address] to the north, and [site address] to the south east. Properties fronting the two main roads are two storey and laid out in a regular pattern of detached dwellings set within modest gardens. The New Star public house addresses the junction between the two roads as a prominent building on a large plot. Behind this primary frontage, two shared parking areas serve a number of bungalows and chalet-style bungalows set within modest gardens. Garages in the form of detached and integrated garages are also present.

The appeal proposal would subdivide the plot at No 273 [site address] , converting its existing garage alongside that to its rear into a single dwelling. A second floor would be added under a mansard-style roof resulting in an additional chalet-style bungalow.

The plot for the proposed dwelling would be significantly smaller than the existing dwellings in this area, even when compared to the modest plots of the bungalows nearby. Instead, the proposed dwelling would appear cramped in comparison to its neighbours and somewhat shoehorned into the available space. The visibly close roofs of the new dwelling and No 273 would highlight this uncharacteristically tight spacing. Furthermore, the two small, fenced areas of courtyard to each side of the dwelling would emphasise the restricted size of the appeal site, and its incongruous position between established plots.

While the existing garage may have been run down, there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that the appeal proposal would be the only way to achieve an improved appearance. Moreover, replacing tired built form with development that is in itself harmful would not result in an overall enhancement to the character of the area.

Consequently, whilst there is some variety in the form and appearance of dwellings within the surrounding area, and certain details of the proposal including its dormer windows would reference nearby dwellings, the siting and scale of the proposal would appear cramped and at odds with development within the street scene. It would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policies PP27 and PP28 of the Poole Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan). Amongst other matters, these policies require development that reflects local patterns of development and neighbouring buildings in terms of layout and siting, including built site coverage. They also only permit plot severances where there is sufficient land to enable a scale and layout of development which would preserve or enhance the area’s residential character.

Despite being accessible from two sides, the parking provision for the new dwelling would be to the north, off [address]. There would however be consequences to both sides of the site as a result of the loss of the two existing garages, and the creation of fenced courtyards within both parking areas.

Various annotations have been added to the plan showing the parking. In reviewing this alongside the Highway Authority’s comments, I am satisfied that sufficient parking is shown for 78a, 78b, and [address] (5 spaces marked ‘F’ on the plan). There is also one space clearly identified for the bungalow at 4 The Mills, and sufficient parking for No 273 with a garage and four spaces shown. However, there is a deficiency in parking spaces on The Mills side of the site, where the Block Plan shows integral garages to three of the bungalows, but only one is actually present. This results in a under provision of two spaces, with one space available each for Nos 1, and 3 The Mills against the Council’s requirement of two. In addition, only one space is shown allocated for the new dwelling, again against the Council’s requirement for two.

It is possible that one or more of the spaces ambiguously identified as ‘V’ and ‘P’ on the block plans could be used to make up this shortfall, however the evidence does not make clear that this would be possible. I am also mindful of the interested parties’ representations that paint a clear picture of existing parking difficulties. In the context of an under provision of allocated spaces, the removal of garages which might otherwise reduce pressure on parking would instead exacerbate the existing parking issues in the two areas of the site.

It is evident on the ground that space for parking is extremely tight, and it is already difficult to safely manoeuvre a vehicle on the [address] side. The proposed bin store and courtyard garden in this area would further reduce the available space for turning vehicles, particularly for those spaces in front of No 78c. In addition, the use of this reduced space for deliveries to the rear of the [name] presents clear potential for vehicle conflicts. While the appellant states that such deliveries would continue to be carried out by a vehicle reversing into the site, this does not reduce the likelihood of conflict, or reduce the harmful effects of compromised vehicle passing and turning spaces.

Although an illustrative tracking path of a delivery vehicle is shown on the parking layout, no accurate tracking details for deliveries to the public house or any swept path analysis for the general manoeuvring of vehicles within this area of the site has been provided. With no compelling evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I find it would be necessary for many vehicles to reverse out of the site onto [address]. As a busy road with an adjacent bus stop and a pavement crossing the site entrance, this presents further significant potential for conflicts between highway users. Alongside the identified deficiencies in parking provision, this would conflict with the Council’s Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

The Council has also raised concerns regarding the provision of cycle parking within the small front courtyard. However, I am satisfied that sufficient cycle parking provision could be accommodated between the front and rear external amenity spaces. In addition, waste collections would be unaffected by the parking and turning space issues, with no need for refuse collection vehicles to enter the site.

Nevertheless, in the absence of any substantive evidence put before me to the contrary, for my reasons above there would be an unacceptably harmful effect on highway safety as a cumulative result of an under supply of parking provision and loss of vehicle manoeuvring space. This would conflict with Policy PP35 of the Local Plan which, amongst other matters, requires that new development accords with the Council’s Parking Standards SPD, providing safe access to the highway.

The new dwelling would be very close to No 273, No 78a and No 78c. Its northern elevation would be 7-8m from the southern elevation of No 78c, which contains three large windows and appears to be its principal outlook. The proposed door and windows serving the kitchen and dining/lounge space of the new dwelling would result in mutual overlooking between the facing windows at ground and first-floor level in No 78c, resulting in a serious loss of privacy to both dwellings. A similar relationship, albeit at a slightly further distance and an oblique angle, would be present between the new dwelling and No 78a.

While the first-floor bedroom windows of the new dwelling would be oriented to limit privacy impacts, several of the ground floor windows would be overlooked by users of the communal parking areas, likely requiring the continuous use of curtains or blinds to preserve privacy. Although the living room would have an alternative window onto a modest private garden space, the kitchen/dining/lounge space would be a particularly dark and gloomy environment, with all windows either shaded or facing onto a very small, north-facing, fenced courtyard. In this room, there would therefore be a reliance on a continuous use of artificial light.

The spatial relationship between the new dwelling and No 273 would be particularly tight. While there would be no direct effects on privacy, the new dwelling would present a blank elevation above a fence approximately 1.6m from the ground floor facing window in No 273. This would dominate the outlook from the existing window and result in an oppressive internal environment. A similar relationship is present at the first floor, where the facing window in No 273 would look directly towards a blank roof slope at a distance of approximately 2m. Accordingly, the overbearing presence of the new dwelling would result in substantial harm to the outlook from No 273.

I do not have details of all the windows within No 273, but also find it reasonable to conclude that the presence of a large structure at proximity to its southern elevation would result in a dark internal environment, and an increase in the need to use artificial lighting.

I have found above that the proposed parking arrangements would compromise vehicle passing and turning spaces. This would result in a greater level of vehicle manoeuvres, alongside a higher number of vehicles accessing the site associated with the additional dwelling. Noise, light, and activity from these increased vehicle movements in a confined area, directly adjacent to ground-floor windows, would cause significant disturbance and materially harm the living conditions of existing and future occupiers.

Moreover, the new dwelling and its main garden space would be immediately adjacent to the outdoor seating area of the [name]. The pub appears to be open and in active evening use, and the presence of high numbers of customers using its outdoor areas, particularly late into the evening, would inevitably lead to noise disturbance in the new dwelling and its garden. Such issues would be particularly prevalent on warm summer evenings, when pub goers would be more likely to use the outside spaces, simultaneously with future occupiers being more inclined to open their windows and use their garden. In the absence of any mitigation or evidence to the contrary, I find that the proximity of the dwelling to the public house outside space would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to noise disturbance.

I have not been presented with any guidance or policy regarding minimum garden sizes. While the external amenity spaces would be small, and their enclosure with tall fencing would make them feel cramped, taken together they would provide space to store bicycles, as well as sufficient private space for activities such as sitting out or drying washing. The dwelling would also provide an appropriate level of internal floor space. However, the provision of appropriate indoor and outdoor amenity space would not compensate for the significant issues identified above concerning privacy, outlook, light, and disturbance.

The proposal would therefore result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No 78a and [address], and No 273 [site address] , and of future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, light, outlook, and disturbance. This would conflict with Policy PP27 of the Local Plan where it requires that development is compatible with surrounding uses and would not result in a harmful impact upon amenity for local residents in respect of privacy, noise and vibration, emissions, artificial light intrusion and whether the development is overbearing or oppressive. There would also be conflict with Policy PP37 in so far as it requires the design of development to minimise the need for artificial light.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence for the [name] and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas, afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations). The site is also within proximity to the [name] site. The Regulations require the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) where there are likely significant effects from the proposal on such sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. However, regulation 63(1) indicates the requirement for an AA is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal. Therefore, in view of my overall conclusions resulting in my decision to dismiss the appeal, it has not been necessary to address this in any further detail.

I am mindful that interested parties have raised further objections regarding wider effects on living conditions, in particular privacy. However, the Council has not found any wider harm in this regard, and having carefully assessed the relationships between the dwellings on site, I see no reason to disagree. However, the absence of wider impacts does not reduce the seriousness of harm that I have found, or carry any weight in favour of the proposed development.

Issues of land ownership and leaseholder rights have also been raised. Such issues are a civil matter, and alongside concerns such as property values and building site safety, are outside of my role to determine the appeal in accordance with planning law.

The parties are in agreement that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is therefore engaged. In these circumstances, this sets out that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole.

The proposal would provide much needed housing against a significant shortfall, and would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. There would also be economic and social benefits both during the construction and in the subsequent occupation of a dwelling with convenient access to services and facilities. However, as only a single unit of accommodation would be provided, I attribute these benefits moderate weight.

The dwelling would include energy efficiency and sustainability measures including low energy lighting and appliances, rainwater collection, and high levels of insulation, which would accord with the Council’s requirements for energy efficient buildings. However, as this is an ordinary requirement of new development, it does not weigh in favour of the development.

The adverse impacts of the proposal are derived from its harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area, on highway safety, and on the living conditions of neighbouring residents and future occupiers of the dwelling. These are all matters which the Framework seeks to protect, and to which I afford significant weight. I therefore find that, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should therefore be dismissed.