Appeal 6000634

The appeal is dismissed.

For the header above I have used the description of development from the application, though the Council have described the development as Demolition of existing single storey garage and erection of a two bed, two-storey dwelling.

At my visit, the existing garage had already been demolished, and the site had been cleared.

The main issues are, i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and ii) whether the proposal provides adequate living conditions for existing and future occupiers with regard to external space; and iii) whether the proposal provides adequate parking provision for occupants of the host dwelling and future occupants of the new dwelling.

The application site is formed from the sub-division of the rear garden area of the host dwelling (No.36), which was L-shaped, housing its garage and car parking and accessed from [address], to form a separate residential curtilage.

The surrounding area is a mid-century housing estate consisting of blocks of two-storey terraced properties, constructed of red brick under pitched and tiled roofs. There is a pattern of wide, open verge spaces and small front gardens to the front of properties, served by a network of public footpaths. Parking is provided either via communal parking courts located between opposing rear gardens, in isolated driveways, or is on-street, though there is an increasing presence of the conversion of front gardens to provide forecourt parking to individual properties.

The gaps between the rear elevations of opposing terraces in the area varies, but at my visit, there was little evidence of such gaps at the ends of runs of terraced properties within the surrounding area, being infilled with development, other than for small single storey flat or pitched roofed garages.

The proposal would introduce a one and a half storey dwelling within the space between the rear elevations of the properties on [address] and [address]. Whilst the upper floor accommodation would be partially within the sloping roof space, it would appear as a 2-storey dwelling, though squatter than surrounding dwellings, within views from [address]. Whilst the separation distance from the [address] properties would be acceptable, it would be close to the rear of the host dwelling and its neighbouring properties, which I find would result in a cramped and congested site layout which would be incongruous in the street scene.

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan - [name] (2011) (the [name]) and the Havant Borough Design Guide – Supplementary Planning Document ([name]). These require, among other things, for development to be designed to a high standard, which respects the layout and character of the local context.

The proposal introduces built form between the host dwelling and the properties at 111 and [address] (No.111 and No.113). Whilst there are windows at first floor in the roof slope facing No.111 and No.113, these are noted as being at 1.7 metres above first-floor level. They would therefore preclude views into No.111 and No.113 and would therefore ensure privacy for the respective occupants. The proposal would also be around 20 metres from these properties and so would have little impact on their outlook or living conditions.

However, the proposal would be significantly closer to the rear elevation of the host dwelling and its neighbours at No.34 and No.38. The Design SPD advises that rear gardens should be a minimum 10 metres in length. This would ensure 20 metres separation between facing properties to maintain privacy for occupants, as well as providing adequate levels of external space. Whilst the proposal would not have windows at first floor facing the host dwelling, it would have window and patio doors facing the rear of the host dwelling at ground level. As the proposal and host would only be separated by around 15 metres, there would be the potential for occupants of the host dwelling and its neighbours, to view down into the proposal, with consequent privacy effects on its future occupiers. Similarly, future occupiers would have views into the upper floor windows of the host dwelling and its neighbours, due to its proximity, well below the recommended 20 metre separation.

Whilst the proposal would comply with the nationally described space standards and would provide acceptable internal space for a 2 bed, 3-person dwelling, the garden would be small, being little over half of the length recommended in the [name]. The restricted length of the garden would result in inadequate external amenity space being provided for future occupiers of the proposal, as well as inadequate separation between adjacent properties, with consequent issues of overlooking and privacy, and the potential for noise and disturbance between future occupiers of the proposal and occupants of the host dwelling, due to the close proximity. It would be symptomatic of a cramped development, with consequent significant harmful effects on the living conditions of its future occupiers, and those of occupants of the host dwelling.

The sub-division of the host dwelling’s rear garden to house the proposed dwelling, would result in the length of the host dwelling’s garden being reduced to between 5.5 metres and 8.9 metres in length. It is a larger property than the proposal and could house a family with children. It would, therefore, need at least the minimum recommended garden length to be maintained, to accommodate outbuildings, play equipment and outdoor seating areas comfortably. The proposal would result in the loss of a significant portion of the host dwelling’s rear garden, leaving insufficient external amenity space for its occupants, with consequent harm to their living

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would result in inadequate external amenity space both for future occupiers of the proposal, and for occupants of the host dwelling, resulting in significant harm to their living conditions. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS16 of the [name] and the [name]. These require, among other things, for development to be designed to a high standard, to create places where people want to live, work and relax, and which does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbours.

The proposal would provide two car parking spaces for the new dwelling. This would accord with the requirements for vehicle parking identified in the Havant Borough Council Parking – Supplementary Planning Document (the [name]). However, the [name] also requires secure and covered parking for 2 cycles for a 2-bed dwelling. No details of such provision were contained within the application or have been submitted with the appeal evidence. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policy DM13 of the [name] and the [name] in these regards. However, these are elements that could be secured by condition and therefore would not justify a refusal.

The sub-division of the host dwelling’s garden to provide the site for the proposal has resulted in the loss of its off-road parking, which amounted to two spaces plus the garage space. This has not been re-provided elsewhere, and no justification has been submitted which demonstrates that the host dwelling does not need this parking provision. The appellant states there is on-street parking available within the area. However, no evidence is before me of any detailed traffic survey having been carried out, which would demonstrate the availability of on-street parking within the area, which might justify the removal of the host dwelling’s parking provision.

At my visit I was able to find on-street parking in the immediate vicinity, though this was only a snapshot of time at mid-morning. However, it was also apparent that the front boundary wall of the host dwelling had been removed, and its front garden laid to gravel. There was evidence of wear to the grass verge caused by vehicles utilising the pedestrian drop kerb at the junction of [address] and [address], to access the host dwellings front garden as a parking forecourt. This suggests a continued need for parking for the host dwelling, and use of this uncontrolled access could result in issues of pedestrian and highway safety for residents of the surrounding area.

For the above reasons I conclude that the proposal would result in insufficient parking for the host dwelling and has failed to demonstrate that such provision is not required, resulting in harm to the parking amenity of the host dwelling’s occupants, nearby residents and the locality. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with policies DM13 and CS16 of the [name] and with the [name]. These require, among other things, development to be designed to a high standard, and which does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbours.

The Environment Act 2021(EA) requires development to provide a minimum of 10% [name] (BNG), unless it meets an exception set out in the statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). The parties agree that the development would meet the de-minimis exemption and therefore is exempt from the BNG requirements.

The Council have confirmed, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), they could demonstrate 1.8 years housing land supply. This is significantly below the 5 years required by the Framework. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes. I will return to this matter in my planning balance later in my decision.

The appeal site is located within the 5.6km zone of influence of the Solent Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) (Chichester and [name]/ Ramsar Site; [name] and Solent and [name]). These are designated [name], recognised for their National and International importance for nature conservation. They host protected priority habitats and species including Dark-bellied brent goose, Eurasian teal, Ringed plover, Black-tailed godwit, Red-breasted merganser, Mediterranean gull, Dunlin, Sandwich tern, Roseate tern, Common tern, Little tern, European honey-buzzard, Hen harrier, Eurasian hobby, European nightjar, Woodlark, Dartford warbler and Wood warbler, together with other typical species of wetland, mudflat, sandflats and coastal lagoons, as well as forest and heath areas.

These protected [name] are under significant pressure from increasing recreational disturbance. The Solent Maritime SAC is also a Designated Nitrogen Sensitive Catchment Area under the Water Industry Act 1991, due to evidence of high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the [name] catchment environment.

The appellant has submitted a [name] which would make provision for a financial contribution towards mitigation of the effects of recreational disturbance in accordance with the SRMP and BAS. It would also mitigate its effects of nitrogen generation via contribution to the MPNND. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, it would have been necessary for me to consult Natural England, and to establish whether the proposal, on its own or in combination with other projects, would likely have significant environmental effects on the integrity of the European sites, and if any mitigation had been appropriately secured. However, it has not been necessary for me to pursue this issue as a finding that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites, with or without any mitigation, would be at best a neutral matter in the planning balance.

The Council have a significant 5-year housing land supply deficit at 1.8 years. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes.

There are no assets as referenced in paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote 7 of the Framework that would provide a strong reason for refusal. Therefore, the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, which states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including the key policies cited.

I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, would harm the living conditions of adjacent neighbours with regards to restricting their access to external amenity space, would provide harmful living conditions for future occupiers of the proposal as a result of inadequate external amenity space, and would harm the parking amenity of the host dwelling’s occupants, nearby residents and the locality. Consequently, I find it conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole.

In terms of the benefits of the proposal, it would provide a single small dwelling which would, even given the severity of the 5YHLS deficit, only minimally boost the housing supply. It is in a relatively accessible location relative to local services, facilities and employment and the housing unit, when completed, would be energy efficient. Its construction would also provide employment and economic activity during the construction phase, as supported by policies within the Framework. However, as the proposal is for a single dwelling, these matters attract only moderate weight in favour of the development.

The Development Plan is more than five years old. However, the most important policies within the plan for determining the application, with which the development conflicts, generally accord with those of the Framework. Therefore, the policy conflicts I have found attract full weight against the scheme in this case.

As set out above, collectively, the benefits attract moderate positive weight in the planning balance. On the other side of the balance, I have found that there would be notable permanent harm caused to the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and the living conditions of future occupiers, which attract full weight. Consequently, I consider that the adverse impacts of approval of the development at this location, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so. Accordingly, the scheme would not represent sustainable development, and this weighs heavily against the proposal.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.