Appeal 6000901

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The first reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice refers to the occupants of [address]. However, it has been clarified within the Council’s statement of case that this is a typographical error and the reason for refusal instead relates to [site address] (No 39). I have made my recommendation on this basis.

The Council in their report has confirmed that the proposed alterations to the existing dwelling would be acceptable. Given the scale and siting of these elements of the appeal scheme I have no reason to form a different view. My reasoning therefore relates to the proposed new dwelling.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed dwelling on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of occupiers of No 39, with particular regard to outlook and light.

[site address] (No 39) comprises a semi-detached dwelling of a scale and design that is typical of several matching pairs on the close, being two storeys in height, with a hipped roof, distinctive double storey flat roofed projection to the front elevation, ground floor front bay window, canopy over the front door and consistent facing materials. It is sited at the end of these distinctive pairs with a notably wider gap to the boundary than others in the group. The houses from [address] (No 41) thereon are more varied in design. Even so, there is much consistency in terms of dwellings being mainly served by independent frontages and more often with garages and / or driveways to the side. In combination, these factors provide for a notable consistency and spaciousness to the street.

The proposed dwelling would broadly align with the established building line on [address], and its hipped roof form would respond to other properties in the street including No 39. However, due to its two-storey scale, very close positioning to its side boundaries, and the resultant removal of the existing side driveway and garage serving No 39, these dwellings would appear markedly cramped, also significantly differentiating No 39 from the spacing of the other similar distinctive pairs on the street. The tight arrangement of these two dwellings would be further emphasised by the provision of a shared frontage, which would be uncharacteristic and at odds with the prevailing street pattern.

Consequently, the proposed dwelling would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2023) (the Local Plan) insofar as it requires all development to achieve high quality sustainable design, reflecting and enhancing existing character and distinctiveness and to be appropriate for its context in terms of, amongst other things, its size, siting, height, scale, massing, form, rhythm, plot widths, gaps between buildings, and the ratio of developed to undeveloped space both within a plot and within a scheme. Living conditions for occupiers of No 39

The new dwelling would be sited close to the side elevation of No 39. The proposed drawings indicate that, following extension and reconfiguration of No 39, the side windows facing the appeal site would not serve main habitable rooms. Therefore, occupiers of No 39 would not rely on these windows for their main source of outlook with the main living areas served by windows to the front and rear elevations. For the same reasons, and given the gap between the existing and proposed dwellings would in any case likely afford some daylight and sunlight to enter the side facing windows at No 39, there is nothing to suggest that occupiers of this dwelling would not have adequate levels of natural light.

For these reasons, the proposed dwelling would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 39, with particular regard to outlook and light. It would therefore accord with Policy S53 of the Local Plan which, amongst other things, requires that development does not compromise the ongoing normal use of the neighbouring site and does not result in harm to people’s amenity including through loss of light.

The appellant refers to properties on the street that extend close to or up to their side boundaries. However, none of the cited examples share the distinctive design of No 39 or its cohesiveness with other similarly designed and spaced dwellings on [address]. Even where built form sits close to the boundary in the examples provided, other than at 47 and [address], there are more often single storey garages to the side which retain a suitable spaciousness. Furthermore, the examples referred to have independent frontages. Therefore, they do not justify a scheme which would appear at odds with the prevailing characteristics of the street.

Notwithstanding the description of the proposal referencing an intention for the development to be self-build, the usual mechanism to secure a development which meets the provisions within the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act (2015) would be through a legal agreement. The appellant has indicated that they would be willing to enter into a [name] to secure this. However, this has not been provided and I have no legal mechanism by which to ensure the dwelling would be a self and custom build development in terms of its occupation.

Notwithstanding the above, the development would deliver one additional home, contributing to the Government’s objective of boosting housing supply. It would align with some aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as providing an energy-efficient dwelling, on a windfall site in a sustainable location. Nonetheless, in the context of a single dwelling such benefits would be modest and do not justify the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area.

I have found that the proposed new dwelling would have an acceptable effect on living conditions of occupiers of No 39, with regards to outlook and light. However, the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area would be significant and overriding. In that regard, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.