Appeal 6000877

The appeal is dismissed.

My attention is drawn to the emerging local plan which I understand has been published for consultation but has not been examined. Taking into account its stage of preparation, the evidence does not satisfy me that the policies will be adopted in the form they are put to me. As such, I give limited weight to these policies in the determination of this appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on; • The character and appearance of the area including the Brompton Lines Conservation Area (CA). • The living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to the vehicle access and privacy. • Highway safety with particular regard to the vehicle access. • The quality of living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The Brompton Lines Conservation Area derives its significance, as a whole, from the historically significant parts of the former defences of the Dockyard. The appeal site is within the area, defined by the Brompton Lines Conservation Area Appraisal (2006) as the ‘[name] which includes [address]. I observed that in this area the 18th and 19th Century houses line the eastern edge of the ‘field of fire’ in a closely packed linear development. [address] is not within the CA but is also characterised by traditional terraced dwellings with small front gardens and long narrow rear gardens. Part of the appeal site is within the CA and part is outside, but due to the relationship and proximity it forms part of its setting. The layout of this area with traditional terraced plots makes a positive contribution to the historic pattern of development and is an important part of the significance of the CA.

The appeal site is a plot to the rear of the terraced properties on [address] and [address]. There is a car spray/repair workshop business with a modest single storey building at [site address] , as well as open land where there were previously garages which have been demolished, which the evidence states is in use as private amenity space. There are also various single storey outbuildings and the site includes part of the rear garden areas of 28, 33 and [address]. This modest built form is secondary to the surrounding housing.

In the locality there is development which does not front the main roads, including the terraced housing at [address] which is orientated north to south and [address] which is orientated east-west. [address] (LPA ref: MC/14/3836), is a row of 5 houses located to the rear of properties on [address] and [address]. Whilst they are wider and detached and semi-detached, their two storey appearance with gable end pitched roofs echoes these features on the nearby terraced houses.

Overall, the pattern of development and appearance, scale and massing of the traditional terraced houses make an important and visually prominent contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would introduce two ‘chalet bungalows’ to this site, they would be single storey with accommodation within their roofs, served by dormers to the rear. Their footprints would be much wider than the surrounding terraced housing.

The front and rear elevations would be orientated broadly north-south, in common with [address] and not incongruous in this regard. However, the bulk and massing of these properties would be clearly at odds with the long, narrow character of the terraced properties which is an important and pronounced part of the surrounding context. The scale of the buildings in the massing and form proposed would unacceptably erode the important pattern of development in this area and consequently would not be well designed.

The appeal scheme would retain the majority of the gardens to the properties at 28, 33 and [address] and they would retain their tight knit, terraced character. In addition, the proposed development would be sited away from the frontages of the properties within the CA. Nevertheless, the proposed development would introduce a bulk and massing to a site within the CA which would harmfully undermine the historically significant and clearly evident pattern of development in this area. This would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. As such, although the harm would be at the mid-lower end of the scale of less than substantial harm, the proposed development would nevertheless be harmful to the significance of the CA in this regard.

Consequently, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area including the Brompton Lines Conservation Area (CA). Therefore, it would be contrary to Policies BNE1 and BNE14 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) (LP). Together these require design to be appropriate to the character and appearance of the environment including in terms of scale, mass, layout and siting and to achieve a high quality of design which preserves and enhances the conservation areas historic character or appearance, amongst other things.

Policy BNE9 of the LP mainly relates to the design of commercial frontages. Therefore, the policies set out above are more relevant to this main issue. Living Conditions

There is an existing vehicle access which runs between 58 and [address]. It passes directly adjacent to their windows and doors as well as underneath an oversailing first floor at no 60. It previously provided access to garages, however these have been demolished. The plans show that it now leads to a large garage associated with [address] and a double garage associated with [address]. It also provides access to the open space to the rear of 44A, however I am not provided with detail about the number or frequency of vehicles which use this route. Taking into account the proximity to these properties and the submissions in this case, these movements are heard by the existing occupiers.

The appeal scheme would not alter the garage to [address] but proposes four open car parking spaces in place of the double garage, and vehicle access to the open space to the rear of 44a would not be possible. However, this route would serve a greater number of houses than at present and, based on the evidence before me, there would be an increase in vehicles coming and going along the road. This would increase the noise and disturbance to these properties over and above the existing situation. Given the direct proximity to the neighbouring accommodation, it would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of these occupiers.

It may be possible to mitigate the temporary effects of the use of the access during construction by means of a detailed CEMP, which could be secured by condition. However, this would not overcome the ongoing harm from the proposed development, identified above.

Dormer windows are proposed to the first floor of the chalet bungalows. They would face to the rear, perpendicular to the main windows to the properties to [address] and [address]. The dormer windows would be around 10m from the closest rear garden at [address]. There would also be angled views towards the rear of the gardens to properties on [address]. However, in this area, the rear part of gardens are generally overlooked by first floor windows to the neighbouring properties. Consequently, it would not be significantly more harmful than the existing situation. Furthermore, taking into account the angle of the view and the separation distances from the windows to the properties at [address] and [address], there would not be an unacceptable loss of privacy to these rooms. Therefore, there would not be harm to privacy in this regard. Albeit, this lack of harm is a neutral matter that does not weigh in favour of the development.

Overall, the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of existing occupiers with particular regard to the vehicle access. As such, it would be contrary to Policy BNE2 of the LP which requires that development should protect the amenities of nearby properties including with regard to noise and vibration, amongst other things.

There would be pedestrian access to the front of the properties. To the rear, the vehicle access would lead to the car and cycle parking spaces which are suitably sized for vehicles to park and turn. As well as to the rear gardens which lead to the two houses. Four car parking spaces are proposed which is in accordance with the Medway Council Interim Residential Parking Standards (2010) and Policy T13 of the LP which requires compliance with these standards. Refuse storage is also located in this area.

The vehicle access route is very narrow for a notable length. Although tight, a car could travel along it, but there would be no space for pedestrians or cycles to pass safely. As such, if two road users were using the access at the same time, they could not pass one another. This could result in vehicles reversing onto [address] and would result in conflict between road users. As the cars, cyclists and pedestrians using the route would only be those connected with the site, this situation would be infrequent, nevertheless given the long, narrow nature of the access these occurrences would result in unsafe manoeuvres and the harm to safety would be serious.

Fire tenders and ambulances would be unable to use this access and would have to park in the street. However, the appellant has proposed a sprinkler system which I understand would comply with the building regulations requirements in this regard, and ambulance crew would be able to access the properties on foot.

Nevertheless, the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policies T1 and T2 of the LP. Together these require that new development should not add to the risk of road traffic accidents, and access should not be detrimental to the safety of road users.

The front of the dwellings would be close to the pedestrian path between [address] and [address], set behind small front gardens. They would have a ground floor kitchen and bedroom window to this elevation which would be the only window to the bedroom.

The outlook to these rooms would be across the narrow path and towards the blank wall very nearby on the opposite side. In addition, passersby would have a direct view into these windows in close proximity. Although the distance from the pavement is similar to elsewhere in [address], these existing houses have an open aspect across the road, which differs from the proposed development. Therefore, taken together, the limited outlook and lack of privacy to these rooms would not result in high quality living conditions for future occupiers.

Consequently, the proposed development would provide inadequate living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to privacy and outlook. As such, it would be contrary to policy BNE2 of the LP which seeks to secure the amenity of future occupiers including with regard to privacy.

The proposed development would provide new homes for the appellant and their wider family who currently live in houses nearby and who have strong family ties due to their cultural beliefs. This would be an important benefit to these occupiers. However, there is little before me to suggest that the appeal proposal to build these two new homes would be the only way to meet the particular needs of the appellant’s family.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. The proposed development would provide two new dwellings within a settlement, along with the social and economic benefits of such provision. They would make an important but modest increase to housing land supply in this area where there is a shortage. Therefore, overall, the benefits of the proposed development would be modest.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (Framework) advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance and that any harm requires clear and convincing justification. In terms of the Framework the harm to the CA would be less than substantial. Nevertheless, this is a matter of considerable weight and importance. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires me to weigh this harm against the public benefits of the scheme.

As set out above, the public benefits of the appeal scheme would be modest. I have also considered that the houses would provide accommodation which would enable this family to live close together. However, I am not satisfied that the proposed development would represent the only or least harmful option to achieve this. Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the appellant’s private rights to enjoyment of their possessions, to family life and their home and the best interests of the child and I am mindful of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 3(1) of the [name] on the Rights of the Child and the implications of my decision on the best interests of the child or children. I have also had due regard to the protected characteristics in this appeal for the purposes of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, including the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equal opportunity and foster good relations between those with protected characteristics and others. Nevertheless, these factors must be weighed against the wider public interest.

On the other hand, having regard to my statutory duty I am required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. Although there is a mid-low level of harm, I attribute considerable importance and weight to the harm identified. Accordingly taking all the above into account, the modest public benefits would not outweigh the harm to the CA. This would therefore represent a strong reason for refusing development.

In addition, for the reasons identified above the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of existing and future occupiers as well as highway safety. Taken together the harm would be substantial. I am satisfied that these legitimate aims can only be adequately safeguarded by the refusal of permission for the development proposed. Consequently, dismissing the appeal for these reasons would be a proportionate and justified outcome.

The Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, therefore paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. However, further to the findings above, the application of policies relating to heritage assets provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, as set out in footnote 7. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

[name]/[name] are habitats sites that have a high level of protection. They are designated for their overwintering bird interest. The Council state that the application would result in increased recreational disturbance on these areas and has not been able to conclude that, without any mitigation in place, in combination with other plans and projects, there would not be a likely significant effect on the interest features of the site from the proposed development. The appellant has made a contribution towards the [name] and [name]. Notwithstanding, there is no need to consider the implications of the proposal on the protected site because the scheme is unacceptable for other reasons.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.