Appeal 6001011

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused for the ‘erection of 1no. 4 bedroom 2 storey house with associated garden and parking’.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that the Council would have refused planning permission should it have made a decision on the proposal. I have had regard to the parties’ submissions in establishing the main issues, which I set out below.

The Council considers that the provision of a 2-storey dwelling within a subdivided rear garden would be: at odds with the area’s spatial character; increase the urbanisation of this part of [address]; introduce inappropriate back land development; and fail to respect, respond or enhance the established pattern of development of the area. Moreover, the Council is of the view that the proposed development would result in an increase in noise, disturbance, light pollution, overlooking and perceived overlooking to neighbouring properties.

Having regard to the above, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, with particular regard to privacy, light pollution, and the potential for noise and disturbance.

[site address] is a detached 2-storey dwelling with an attached single storey garage. It is located within the middle section of [address], which holds strong building lines to either side of this residential street that consists of detached and semi-detached 2-storey dwellings in varying age and architectural style, with limited gaps between them. Properties are broadly positioned within plots that are much deeper than they are wide. Private rear gardens are generous in depth and back onto each other, which collectively provide a generous open green space to the rear of the properties, and I found it to be pleasant and tranquil. I observed a number of outbuildings within these rear gardens ranging from a greenhouse to a single storey brick and tile structure. All these factors contribute to a strong degree of harmony that influences the overall character and appearance of this suburban location.

The proposed development would divide the existing linear plot and create a new narrow driveway between Nos. 40 and [address], to serve the new dwelling, by demolishing the garage and utilising the existing footway crossing. A new 4-bedroom dwelling of a similar height to No. 40, would be introduced into the rear plot containing 2 floors of accommodation where there is currently nothing of that nature. It would appear visually jarring and isolated in this location. In addition to being visible from the public highway between Nos. 38 and 40, it would be highly prominent to occupiers of the houses on [address] and [address]. Moreover, there was an absence of narrow access points positioned between properties serving any houses located to the rear, along the length of [address].

Consequently, the proposed development would introduce development into a rear garden that would fail to reflect the established pattern of development, which would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been drawn to a number of developments in the wider locality, which is claimed by the appellant to provide a precedent to justify the proposal. I have little information relating to the particular circumstances of these developments and whether the circumstances are comparable to the appeal scheme. I did observe that many of these developments appeared to consist of multiple dwellings, rather than a single dwelling, and that none were located on [address]. As such, a comparison is of limited relevance in this instance. I have therefore considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits.

A hypothetical development proposal supports the appeal scheme showing a line of detached houses positioned behind Nos. 26 to [address] and all accessed off the new drive between nos. 38 and 40. This plan1 clearly states that no neighbours have been approached regarding the proposal. The purpose of this plan is to illustrate that the appeal scheme would not sterilise a more comprehensive development of the area. Nevertheless, this is neither for my consideration nor a determinative factor in this case.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Core 1 [name]. PL-120 Policies 1, 8 and 9 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 (SLDF) and Policies H13, EN1 and EN2 of The Local Plan for Slough (March 2004) (SLP). Collectively these seek, amongst other things, development to reflect a high standard of design that respects its location and surroundings, including the character and distinctiveness of existing buildings, townscapes and landscapes.

The new driveway would result in vehicular movements and other related activities, such as the closing of car doors, associated with the proposed house taking place in close proximity to the sides of Nos. 38 and 40, as well as the rear gardens of these properties and that of No. 42. By reason of the likely number of occupiers in the large 4-bedroom house with 3 parking spaces, the resulting number of movements and activities would generate a harmful level of noise and disturbance within a part of the site where a quieter environment would be expected.

New acoustic fencing is shown to be installed along the site’s boundaries with Nos. 38 and 42, though there is limited information before me to demonstrate its effectiveness in mitigating noise and disturbance from the vehicles associated with the new dwelling.

The submitted plans indicate a distance of some 23m between the front elevation of the new dwelling and the rear elevation of No. 40 as well as a greater distance, at oblique angles, to the rear elevations of Nos. 38 and 42. At the closest points a distance of approximately 10m and 9m would be achieved from the new house to the rear boundaries of the gardens with No. 40 and [address] respectively, though the length of the latter’s extensive rear garden would remain unchanged.

The Council has not disputed these distances, which are significantly less than the existing situation. Nevertheless, I observed on site that the intervening distances to these neighbouring properties from the new house, as well as the oblique angle towards Nos. 38 and 42, would be of a sufficient amount not to warrant the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of overlooking, including perceived overlooking, on neighbouring properties.

Light sources from a low level, such as from vehicle headlights, would be unlikely to encroach into private gardens or towards the rear elevations of neighbouring houses due to the presence of solid fencing along the site’s side boundaries. Moreover, light from a higher-level would be limited to first floor windows in the new dwelling and would have a negligible impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties in terms of light pollution.

[name] have found that the proposed development would not cause a material adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with regard to privacy and light pollution, I have found an unacceptable effect in terms of noise and disturbance. Therefore, it would be contrary to SLDF Core Policy 8 and SLP Policy EN1, which include the requirement that developments shall not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and are compatible with their surroundings in terms of their relationship to nearby properties.

I appreciate that there was some support for the scheme in terms of the proposal’s impact on the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of neighbouring properties, its sustainability credentials and the precedent given by other developments in the locality. However, this has not led me away from my findings on the main issues.

I give significant weight to the conflict with [name] 1, 8 and 9, and [name] H13, EN1 and EN2, which are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in ensuring that development is sympathetic to local character and in the creation of a high standard of amenity for existing users. As a result, I find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council has stated that it has a deliverable housing supply of 2.5 years. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is applicable. Paragraph 11 d) ii) identifies that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to certain key policies including securing well-designed places.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution in the delivery of an energy efficient, accessible dwelling that would be suitable for occupation by a family and increase biodiversity. The limited scale of the development means that I afford the provision of a new house within the context of the current shortfall, along with the other benefits listed above, moderate weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

It is asserted that the appeal site is not located within a Conservation Area, a residential area of exceptional character, an area at risk of flooding or subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The proposal would also; comply with Gross Internal Area requirements; provide gardens with secure cycle storage; be sited away from a neighbouring tree; incorporate off-street parking with charging points and discrete bin stores; and have an appearance that responds to the mix of architectural styles in the area. A lack of harm in these respects are neutral considerations that weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

On the other side of the balance, there would be an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area as well as on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, which would be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework. Given the long-lasting effects on both the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of residents, I attribute significant weight to this conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework does not apply.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.