Appeal 6000888

The appeal is dismissed

I have amended the description of development to exclude references to anything that is not an act of development.

Amended plans were provided as part of the appeal which the appellants state were intended to address parking issues identified by the council. However, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and, in any case, there are discrepancies between the submitted site and block plans, for example in relation to the boundaries between the existing and proposed houses and the distribution of parking spaces between the proposed houses. Accepting these amended plans would introduce uncertainty and therefore be procedurally unfair following the Holborn Studios1 judgment.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 35, 37 and [address] with regards to privacy, noise and disturbance, the outlook from No 35 and the provision of outdoor space for Nos 35 and 37 • Whether the development would provide sufficient private outdoor space for the occupiers of the proposed houses, • Whether it would make sufficient provision for biodiversity net gain, • Whether it would provide safe and adequate vehicular access, • Whether it would provide adequate on-site parking, 1 Holborn Studios Limited v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney (2017) EWHC 2823 (Admin) • Whether it would provide adequate arrangements for bin storage and collection, • The effect on the character and appearance of the area; and • Whether it would provide safe access for pedestrians to the highway.

The appeal proposal would create four new houses in the rear gardens of Nos 35 and [address]. These new houses would face the rear gardens of the host dwellings. There would be limited separation between the proposed houses and rear gardens to 35 and 37 which would be significantly shortened by the development. Even allowing for the proposed rear boundary treatments to the existing houses this would result in their rear gardens being almost entirely overlooked. The occupiers would therefore have little privacy in the gardens. This would be an unacceptable relationship, with both existing properties directly overlooked by two new houses.

There would also be increased overlooking of the rear garden to No 39. However, this would be tempered by the greater distance and oblique relationship even to the closest of the four houses. In addition, a similar relationship exists to the nearest house on [address]. On balance, therefore, this would not result in unacceptable harm to the privacy of the occupiers of No 39.

The development would result in an intensification of the use of the appeal site with 6 houses occupying a space currently used by 2. This would result in a significant increase in comings and goings and general use of the site. However, the site is in an existing residential area where such levels of movement and sound are typical. The development is not of a scale that would result in harmful additional disturbance to the occupiers of Nos 35, 37 or 39.

The separation distance between the facing elevations of the proposed houses and Nos 35 would be similar to that between properties on [address] and [address]. On balance, therefore, the proposed houses would not appear overbearing to the occupiers of No 35.

Nonetheless, the development would result in unacceptable living conditions due to the loss of privacy to the occupiers of Nos 35 and 37. It would therefore conflict with the requirements of policy EN1 of the Local Plan and Core Policy 8 of the [name]. These policies require, amongst other things, that development must be compatible with their surroundings in terms of their relationship to nearby properties and respect the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

The appeal site narrows from the front to the rear, and has several established trees to the rear, some of which lie outside the red line on the submitted plans. The plans indicate that the rear gardens to the proposed houses would be extensively overhung by the canopies of the trees. This would be particularly the case for the house at 35b which would have the shortest rear garden of the four houses. This garden would also narrow significantly toward the rear boundary due to the irregular boundary line that follows the stream.

These factors taken together would result in gardens of poor quality for the proposed houses, especially during those times of year when the trees to the rear of the site would be in leaf. This would result in poor quality living conditions for occupiers, with little or no useable external space elsewhere in the individual plots due to the parking and access to the front of the houses.

There is a public open space next to the appeal site. However, public spaces are not a suitable substitute for private garden space for family homes. Whilst it would be a benefit to the occupiers of the proposed houses, it would not offset the limited value of the rear gardens.

The appeal proposal would therefore fail to provide sufficient private outdoor space for the occupiers of the proposed houses. It consequently conflicts with Core Policy 8 of the [name] and policies H13, H14 and H15 of the Local Plan. Taken together these require that development provide appropriate amenity space of a suitable quality in terms of area, depth, orientation and usefulness.

There is a stream to the rear of the site. No information has been provided regarding the effect of the development on this stream and its suitability as a wildlife habitat. In the absence of this information it is not possible to form an accurate assessment of whether the development would deliver an overall biodiversity net gain.

The appeal proposal therefore conflicts with Core Policy 9 of the [name] which requires that development protects and enhances the water environment and its margin and enhances and preserves natural habitats and the biodiversity of the Borough.

The vehicle access between Nos 35 and 37 would be narrow, and insufficient to allow passing traffic in places along its length. The traffic associated with 4 houses would be likely to result in conflict between vehicles travelling in opposite directions along the access. Due to the width of the access this would result in vehicles reversing, potentially causing risks for traffic travelling along [address].

Furthermore, as proposed the access onto [address] would be fenced to the boundary with the substantial hedgerow to the front of No 37 retained. While the submitted [name] indicates that acceptable visibility splays would be provided those shown in [name] of this Statement conflict with the landscaping details on the submitted plans. Even if the fence were low enough to allow the indicated splays, the retained planting to the front of No 37 would restrict visibility in that direction for and of vehicles leaving the site. This would also result in increased risk for users of the highway.

The appeal proposal would therefore fail to provide safe and adequate vehicular access, so would conflict with Core Policy 7 of the [name]. This requires, amongst other criteria, that development make appropriate provisions for improving road safety.

Local Plan policy T2 states amongst other things that residential development will be required to provide a level of parking appropriate to its location. The houses identified as 35a and 37b would each have a parking space alongside in addition to 2 spaces to the front. These spaces to the side would be constrained by the flank walls of the houses and would not meet the size sought by the council. It is not therefore clear that the spaces would be fit for purpose.

Consequently, it is also not clear whether the development would provide adequate on-site parking, and therefore it conflicts with policy T2 of the Local Plan.

The spaces shown within the proposed car ports would also be constrained if the car ports would be built with solid walls, but this is not clear from the submitted plans. [name] otherwise been minded to allow this appeal I would have sought clarity on this point, but as I am dismissing on other grounds it was not necessary to do so.

The council’s [name] recommends a maximum distance of 30 metres for residents to drag refuse bins to a collection point. In this instance a distance of 40 metres is proposed, Whilst the appellants suggest this would not lead to inconvenience and the suggested maximum distance of 30 metres is a recommendation, the proposed distance would significantly exceed this. It would cause issues on an ongoing basis for residents, especially those with mobility issues. The appeal proposal would therefore fail to provide adequate arrangements for bin storage and collection, contrary to guidance in the [name].

The surrounding area is characterised by residential development of varied style and appearance. While houses are principally two-storey detached there are also some single-storey and semi-detached houses near to the appeal site. While most houses directly front onto [address], [address] and [address] are cul-de-sacs accessed from [address] a short distance from the appeal site. In both cases houses on those streets lie partly to the rear of houses on [address] and are visible from the appeal site. Backland development resulting in shorter rear gardens is therefore an established part of the local character.

The development would be approached via a narrow access between Nos 35 and 37, whereas [address] and [address] are wider. Nonetheless, the relationship between the proposed houses and Nos 35 and 37 would be similar to those existing between houses on [address] and [address].

Overall, given the relatively small scale of the proposed development, the layout and access would not appear so out of keeping with the general character and appearance of the area that it would result in harm. The appeal proposal would therefore accord with [name] 1, 4 and 8 of the [name] and policies H13, H14, H15, EN1 and EN3 of the Slough Local Plan. Taken together these require, amongst other criteria, that development be of a high quality design and in keeping with the existing residential area.

Whilst the proposed vehicle access would be narrow, it would be straight from the site access to the turning and parking area. Vehicles travelling along the access would be likely to travel more slowly along its length than on the public highway. Drivers would also have full visibility of any pedestrians walking along it. On balance, therefore, it would not result in significant risk to pedestrians along its length.

The development would result in additional vehicle traffic along [address] which is a shared surface for both pedestrian and vehicle traffic. As the proposal is only for 4 additional houses this would be a very small increase in the rate of traffic relative to that generated by all existing properties on the street. This would not therefore result in significant additional risk to users of the highway.

Overall, therefore, this element of the development would not conflict with the aims of Core Policy 7 set out above.

The appeal site lies within 5.6 kilometres of the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (the SAC). The SAC is an extensive area of former beech wood-pasture that provides a habitat for protected species and important epiphytic communities. The appellants have provided a unilateral undertaking committing them to pay for mitigation measures to offset any adverse effect arising from the appeal proposal, although the council has raised concerns about the information provided to support this. As the competent authority, if I had been minded to allow this appeal I would have carried out an appropriate assessment to determine whether the proposed development would have been likely to cause significant effects to the integrity of the SAC. [name] am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, however, I do not need to consider this matter further.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states the government objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The council has a 2.2 year supply of deliverable housing land, a substantial shortfall on the requirement for 5 years’ supply. As the council has also failed to meet its housing delivery target, a 20% buffer is applied to its housing land supply.

Given these considerations there is therefore an acute need for new housing in the borough. The appeal proposal would deliver 4 new homes providing a good standard of accommodation in a sustainable location. The houses are well designed. The development would accord with the local character given the previous backland development in the immediate vicinity and would represent an effective use of urban land. The site is small, and the Framework recognises that development on such sites can be delivered quickly. The council’s [name] identifies a need for larger homes of the sort proposed. Given the shortfall in both housing land supply and housing delivery, the benefits of 4 new homes attract considerable weight in the overall balance.

The development would also deliver short-term economic benefits from the construction, and long-term benefits from the occupation of the new homes. These benefits attract moderate additional weight given the relatively small scale of the proposal.

Set against this the development would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 35 and [address]. It would also fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers due to the constrained rear gardens. In addition, there would be highway safety risks arising from the restrictions around the vehicle access, and the development would fail to provide sufficient on-site parking for at least 2 of the houses. It is also not clear that the development would deliver an overall biodiversity net gain due to a lack of information about the stream to the rear of the site.

Taken together these considerations would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise from the proposed development.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, to indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.