Appeal 6000872

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘the erection of two x one-bedroom flats and associated development’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00354/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:-

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers:- 2434/LP Site Location Plan and Proposed Block Plan (received by the local planning authority on 7 May 2025); 2434/P1 [name] (received by the local planning authority on 18 August 2025); 2434/P2 [name] (received by the local planning authority on 18 August 2025).

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials contained within the submitted application form.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall provide for: i) the means of access for construction traffic; ii) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; iii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iv) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; v) measures to control the emission of noise, dust and dirt during construction; vi) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No development shall take place until full details of any necessary piling or other penetrative foundation design have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority including details of any mitigation measures to minimise the effects of noise and vibration on surrounding occupiers. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Construction and site preparation works shall take place only between 08:00- 18:00 Monday - Friday, 08:00-13:00 Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window at first floor within the [name] elevation serving the Kitchen/Dining/Living Area (Apartment 2) shall have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted details of the positions, height, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed as in accordance with the approved details before the building is occupied and retained thereafter.

The main issues are:- i) whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to loss of light, overlooking and privacy; and ii) the effect of the proposed development on parking provision and highway safety.

The side elevation of the proposed building would be sited some 11.2 metres from the main facing elevation of the terraced dwellings comprising [address] (“nos. 137-141”), taking the measurement from the submitted plan, which has not been disputed by the Council. A number of single storey projections extend from the main facing elevations of nos. 137-141, such that the intervening distance between the proposed building and those existing rearward projections is reduced to a distance of around 5.6 metres, taking the Council’s measurement, which has not been disputed by the appellant. Taking account of the moderate separation distances and the siting and layout of the proposed building, which would include a number of windows and a set of patio doors within the side elevation, there would be potential for overlooking towards the rear of nos. 137- 141 to occur.

However, the proposed first floor windows within the side elevation would be limited in size. The proposed landing window would result, at most, in brief and transitory views towards neighbouring properties during arrival and departure from the first floor dwelling. Any such views would therefore be momentary rather than lasting for extensive periods of time and would, in my view, not constitute sustained or intrusive overlooking towards the rear of nos. 137-141. A further first floor window would serve the kitchen/dining/living room. However, it would be a secondary window with the purpose of providing light to that room and the inclusion of obscured glazing and a restriction limiting its ability to be fully openable would ensure that sustained views into primary habitable-room windows or private external amenity areas of neighbouring dwellings would be limited.

While the proposal would introduce direct views from first floor windows positioned within the rear elevation of the proposed building towards neighbouring properties on [address] and the rear gardens of 143 and [address], it is noted that there is already a significant degree of intervisibility between properties and their gardens due to the existing relationship, orientation, and limited separation distances. As such, the perceived level of overlooking from first floor windows within the rear elevation would not be materially different from that which is already experienced. In this context, the proposal would not result in a significant or unacceptable increase in harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

Although there would be direct and angled views from the ground floor patio doors and windows within the side elevation towards neighbouring properties at nos. 137-141, I consider that any potential overlooking and loss of privacy could be adequately mitigated through the provision of an appropriate boundary treatment positioned between the appeal site and nos. 137-141. Although precise details of the boundary treatment have not been specified, I consider this matter is capable of being addressed by way of a suitably worded planning condition to require details of the materials, height, location and design of the boundary treatment to be approved by the local planning authority prior to any occupation of the development, and to ensure the boundary treatment is retained for the lifetime of the development, thereby ensuring an adequate level of privacy for neighbouring occupiers and thus safeguarding their residential amenity.

With regard to potential impact on light to neighbouring properties, the proposed two storey building would incorporate a sloping pitched roof and would be sited approximately 11.2 metres from the main facing elevation of nos. 137-141, which are positioned to the northwest of the appeal site. Having regard to the separation distance, orientation and roof form, it has not been shown that the appeal scheme would give rise to a material reduction in daylight or sunlight to any neighbouring habitable rooms or their private amenity spaces. Any additional shadowing would be likely to be limited in extent and duration and would largely occur at times when the sun is lower in the sky. In this context, I find that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of light to neighbouring occupiers and the appeal scheme would therefore preserve an acceptable level of residential amenity.

Accordingly, I conclude that, subject to the imposition of planning conditions as detailed above, the proposed development would not cause material harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of light, overlooking or loss of privacy. The appeal scheme would accord with the provisions of Policy 10 of the [name] (2014) (ACS) and Policy 17 of the Part 2 Local Plan (2019) (LP) insofar as these policies seek to prevent unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The appeal site is a largely flat and rectangular area of hardstanding positioned to the rear of nos.137-141. Whilst it is stated to have previously formed part of the rear gardens of nos. 137-141, it is currently in separate ownership. The appellant sets out that the site has been used for vehicle parking on an ‘informal lease basis’ in the past and whilst it accepts that it continues to be used for informal occasional parking purposes by residents of properties that front onto [address], no arrangement is currently in place that provides permission for residents to park their vehicles within the site. No evidence to the contrary has been provided to show that any right(s) currently exist for any individual(s) to use the site for parking.

As a result of the proposed development, any vehicle that currently uses the site for parking would be displaced and would have to find alternative space for parking elsewhere, which is likely to be within the surrounding roads. However, since no licences or rights have been identified which allow nearby residents to use the site for parking, it would be open to the owner of the land to prevent access and restrict the use of the land at any point, regardless of whether the site is developed or not. As such, use of the appeal site as parking on an informal basis does not carry the weight of a formal parking entitlement.

The Highway Authority (HA) was consulted as part of the application and in pointing to the appeal site being located outside of the town centre envelope, the HA initially stipulated the appeal scheme should provide one parking space per flat. The Council has suggested that there are ‘existing parking problems’ along [address] South which would be further exacerbated as a consequence of the displacement of vehicles from the appeal site and the failure of the appeal scheme to make any provision for off-street parking for future occupants of the proposed dwellings.

A number of interested parties have provided their comments and refer to their own use of the appeal site for parking or its use by other residents, with an interested party suggesting that ‘at least 4 individuals’ would be affected. A number of photographs have been submitted as part of the appeal. In an undated photograph within the [name] dated 3 June 2025 there are a limited number of vehicles shown to be parked within the appeal site. The Council’s undated photographs show it being used by 1-3 vehicles at any one time and at the time of my site visit, I observed the appeal site to be mainly unoccupied save for a very limited number of parked vehicles. Notwithstanding that the submitted photographs show the extent of parking within the appeal site on a modest number of occasions, there is little detailed information before me regarding the level and frequency of parking which takes place within the appeal site and the number of vehicles that would be likely to be displaced as a consequence of the proposed development.

A number of interested parties refer to issues with on-street parking and describe street parking in close proximity as being often unavailable. [name] note there are parking restrictions along [address] and along one side of [address] South, unrestricted parking is available to the opposite side of [address] South and within other adjoining roads. At the time of my visit, I observed that, along the unrestricted part of [address] South, it was modestly parked such that there was space along its length, and in reasonably close distance of the appeal site, within which vehicles could be parked. [name] appreciate that my site visit provided only a snapshot of time in which to observe parking conditions within the surrounding road network, I note that the HA were consulted on this matter and commented that they were unable to ‘refuse on highway grounds as it would be inconvenience to local residents as they would be parking on street which is not a safety issue’. On the basis of the information before me I find there is little substantive evidence to demonstrate that the level of on-street parking within the locality is at a level whereby current capacity is inadequate such that this would cause the additional vehicles to create additional parking pressure that would be likely to cause an obstruction or impede the free flow of traffic such that highway safety would be unduly compromised.

There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site is located within walking distance of Beeston town centre and in close proximity to a number of nearby tram and bus stops with a regular service. The appeal site’s location is therefore one that has good access to public transport and is likely to encourage walking and cycling as a sustainable mode of transport as an alternative to car ownership. The provision of dedicated cycle storage for each dwelling would increase the likelihood of future occupiers of the dwellings using sustainable transport modes rather than private vehicle ownership and use.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2024)(the Framework) sets out, amongst other things, that development should only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The provision of two one-bedroomed flats would be likely to be associated with low levels of private car ownership and whilst it cannot be ruled out entirely, there is little substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the current capacity for on-street parking within the vicinity of the appeal site is inadequate such that additional vehicles resulting from the proposed development, or those displaced from the appeal site, would be likely to lead to a level of additional on-street parking which would be harmful to highway safety.

LP Policy 17 sets out that new development should, where relevant, provide among other things, sufficient and well-integrated parking. However, the inclusion of the words ‘where relevant’ indicates, in my view, that it will not always be strictly necessary to provide off-street parking and in this instance, given that the appeal site has good access to a variety of public transport options and community facilities and is likely to encourage walking and cycling, this satisfies other requirements of LP Policy 17 such that I find no conflict with the provisions of LP Policy 17. Similarly, I find that there would be no conflict with ACS Policy 10 insofar as it requires new development to, among other things, reflect the need to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles.

I have had regard to the comments of interested parties, a number of which refer to the main issues I have addressed above. In addition, it is put to me that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. However, the Council have raised no objection to the scheme based on its visual impact and I see no reason to disagree with their assessment.

Reference is also made to flooding. Whilst the application site lies within [name] 2 and 3, the Council has considered the sequential and exception tests to be met and has concluded the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on flood risk. No substantive evidence has been provided to lead me to a different conclusion. The absence of harm is a neutral matter that weighs neither for nor against a proposal.

Concern has been raised regarding the potential noise disturbance arising from future occupiers occupying the proposed dwellings. However, little evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development would give rise to unacceptable noise and disturbance impacts and noting that the proposal would introduce a residential use in a predominantly residential area, I find no basis to conclude that the development would be unduly harmful in this regard.

Although a number of waste receptacles for nearby dwellings have been placed within the appeal site, there is little information to demonstrate that waste receptacles could not be re-located elsewhere such as within the rear yards of the properties that they serve.

Although reference has been made to the potential for overlooking from a balcony, the submitted plans do not show a balcony to be included within the proposed development. Concern has also been raised regarding the proximity of proposed windows within the side elevation closest to the adjacent house on [address] South. However, the windows are proposed to serve a shower rooms and would be constructed from obscure glazing and non-opening below 1.7 metres, which would adequately mitigate any adverse impact on the neighbouring occupiers at [address] South.

A draft list of conditions was provided by the Council. I have considered these against the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. As a result, I have amended some of them for consistency or clarity and where necessary I have, taking account of the comments of the parties, added other conditions. Where a condition appears as a pre-commencement condition, the comments of the appellant were sought and their confirmation has been given to the acceptance of these conditions.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, it is necessary to define the plans for certainty.

In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area, a condition is necessary to require the agreed external materials are used.

In the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety and the free flow of traffic, a condition to ensure the implementation of an approved Construction Management Plan is necessary. Given that impacts would arise immediately once development begins and would, if unmanaged, be likely to result in harm to residential amenity, highway safety and the free flow of traffic, a pre-commencement condition is therefore necessary.

A condition to ensure the implementation of an approved foundation design with mitigation measures is necessary to ensure noise, dirt, vibration and disturbance is minimised during construction in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, including those occupiers who would be working from home during hours of construction. The requirement for below ground works necessitates this condition being a pre-commencement condition.

Whilst not suggested by the Council, a condition requiring the side elevation first floor window serving the kitchen/dining/living area to be obscure glazed and with limited opening and the implementation of an approved boundary treatment are necessary to safeguard residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed, subject to the