Appeal 6001095

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which is more accurate than that used in the application form. As part of the appeal, the appellant has provided a revised block plan, showing the relocation of parking space four, and additional Daylight information. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on this. I shall therefore determine the appeal based on the amended plan and updated details. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, • whether the proposal would make appropriate provision for vehicle and cycle parking for future occupiers, • whether the proposal would provide adequate outdoor space for future occupiers, • whether the proposal would have sufficient provision for bin storage, • the effects of construction of the proposal, and • the effects of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties with regard to sunlight, daylight and overshadowing.

The site consists of two blocks of flats, [address] and [address], together with a communal parking and turning area. Each block has three storeys and a flat roof. They are in an elevated position, on a rising gradient, resulting in [address] having a higher ridgeline than [address]. The blocks are located on a relatively tight site, between a vegetated cliff face to the rear and a lower level of terraced properties fronting [address] below. The site is accessed via a sloping driveway.

As well as the frontage terrace, [address] hereabouts has large-scale commercial warehouse buildings. Some have pitched roofs, but others have a broadly horizontal profile with flat roofs or parapets, set against the long backdrop of the cliff faces either side and their treed ridges. One such building, now occupied by [name], is immediately adjacent to the site. The flat-roofed form and stepped position of the existing blocks positively reflect the existing street scene and its horizontal emphasis, providing a reasonable degree of transition from the warehouse buildings.

The proposal seeks to erect an additional storey to each block, taking the form of a mansard roof with dormers. They are intended to read as distinct layers, being set behind the existing parapets and being subordinate to the rest of the building. The new storeys would have a darker regressive colour than the others, and would have window proportions to match the host.

However, the proposed ridgelines would be notably taller than those of the existing buildings, and would result in each block appearing over-dominant. The upwards extensions would harmfully disrupt the sense of transition to the nearby buildings and would fail to reflect the horizontal emphasis of the surrounding area. The extension to [address] would exacerbate its tall height compared to the terraced properties on [address], and mansard roofs are not identified as a particular characteristic of the area.

Consequently, the proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene, and would instead appear out of place. Despite some screening by the frontage terrace, its adverse effects would be seen when approaching the site from the north, and from elevated sections of [address]. A recently built, larger development at [name], on [address], has been drawn to my attention. However, the context of that site, including the design of nearby buildings, differs from the proposal before me, thus preventing useful comparison.

For the reasons given, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with policies DE1 and DE4 of the Torbay Local Plan (TLP), adopted December 2015, and policy TH8 of the Torquay Neighbourhood Plan (NP), adopted June 2019. These require that the height of new buildings should be appropriate to the location and setting of the development, and should respect local character in terms of scale, bulk and massing. I give this conflict substantial negative weight in the planning balance.

The appeal site has parking between the two blocks. It has additional, visitor parking at the site entrance, outside of the [name] unit. It is now proposed that four spaces here would serve the new flats, thus complying with the standard of TLP policy TA3 and its appendix, of one space per unit. On this basis, all flats would have their own allocated space, reducing competition amongst occupiers for the currently unallocated spaces.

Although current visitor parking would be lost, policy TA3 and its appendix makes no requirement for such spaces. The revised location of space four means that it would no longer be in front of the fire exit serving number [address], and would not impede manoeuvring on the driveway, thus overcoming the Council’s concerns in these respects.

However, the plans show only one access to [name], and do not show a second gated entrance to this property. ‘No parking’ signs have been erected to avoid blockages. A vehicle parked within proposed space four (in its amended location) would impede or prevent use of this second access. As a result, regardless of whether the access constitutes a fire exit, the proposed parking arrangement would be unsatisfactory, and would risk conflict with users of the storage unit. Discounting this space means that there would be a shortfall in the number provided when compared to the policy standard.

Furthermore, proposed spaces one to four would be located some distance from the flats, requiring occupiers to walk along the unlit, sloping driveway. The same is true of the limited on-street parking hereabouts. No maximum acceptable distance between spaces and residential units has been identified in planning policy. Even so, drivers for example of delivery vehicles, or people of limited mobility, may well use the already constrained higher parking area instead, for convenience or necessity. This would risk conflict with other occupiers of the flats, and those of the dwelling at Berryhead View1, which is accessed through this area.

The submitted plans show spaces for 17 bicycles. This number would accord with TLP policy TA3 and its appendix, which requires each flat to be served by a minimum of one cycle storage space. Such areas here have previously been blocked by bins or large stored items. Nonetheless, the proposed areas would have separate entrances from the bin stores, and a planning condition could limit their use to only bicycles. As such, I conclude that the proposal would make adequate provision for cycle parking, complying with TLP policy TA3 and the similar requirements of TLP policy DE3 and NP policy TH9 in this respect.

Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, the proposal would not make adequate provision for vehicle parking for future occupiers. Consequently, it would conflict with TLP policies TA2 and TA3, and NP policy TH9, which require adequate accessibility, the appropriate provision of parking spaces, and the avoidance of parking conflict. I give this harm and conflict substantial negative weight.

NP Policy THW4 requires that new flatted development must have outside space of not less than [address] metres per unit, either of communal green areas or 1 Also referred to as ‘Berryhead [postcode] ’. balconies. No balconies are proposed. Whilst the site has small areas of green space at its fringes, there is little scope to provide additional amenity space to serve future occupiers. The revised block plan removes a suggested small area within the driveway, and additional planting or seating would not provide the necessary additional space.

The policy does permit an alternative to on-site provision, where there are compelling opportunities to enhance nearby spaces. A contribution towards enhancing off-site public space may be possible, but I have few details of any such measures. Furthermore, no mechanism to secure any financial payment, such as a legal agreement, is before me. The flats may well comply with the [name], but these relate to internal space rather than outside areas.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not provide adequate outdoor space for future occupiers. It would therefore conflict with NP policy THW4, as well as TLP policy DE3 and its requirement for useable outdoor amenity areas. This conflict carries significant negative weight in the planning balance.

The appeal site currently has two small bin and cycle storage areas, one for each block of flats. The driveway is a private, unadopted road. As such, I understand that rubbish collection takes place at the roadside, rather than directly from the storage areas within the site. At the time of my visit, bins were stored within the circulation area close to the flats, albeit not within the dedicated bin storage areas.

Nevertheless, on the evidence before me, I understand that residents have previously left their bins at the roadside, even when not due for collection. This is because of the length and steep gradient of the driveway, which makes it awkward for occupiers to return the bins to the higher level. The continuous presence of the bins at the roadside would no doubt appear unsightly in the street scene, and has resulted in littering.

The proposal includes enlarged bin and cycle stores within the site, making additional provision for recycling and refuse bins. The appellant acknowledges that this would result in a shortfall against the Council’s contractor’s standards. It is suggested that the plans could be amended to make further provision, with continued weekly private bin collections to reduce the storage space needed.

Even so, the appellant confirms that bins would be positioned at the bottom of the access road for collection, rather than bin lorries entering the site. Given the nature of the driveway, future residents of the new flats may well also leave their bins at the roadside outside of collection times, thus exacerbating the adverse effects identified above. Accordingly, I am not convinced that the proposal would provide sufficient provision for its additional waste.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not make adequate provision for bin storage. It would therefore conflict with TLP policies DE3 and W1, which require appropriate provision for storage and removal of waste likely to be generated. I give this significant negative weight in the planning balance.

The proposal includes details of how its construction could be managed. A plan shows the proposed location of construction vehicles, being adjacent to [name], along the access road, and between [address] and the site boundary. Such vehicle parking could well impede the use of the access to the storage unit, to the existing flats, and to [address]. Construction works would be likely to take some time, and result in inconvenience to existing residents and users of the self-storage unit, such as the temporary loss of parking spaces.

Nevertheless, the plan is described as preliminary. It has been suggested that an off-site public car park could be used instead, with workers being shuttled to and from the site. Alternatively, it is possible that the yard serving the self-storage unit adjacent to the site could be made available. The delivery of materials, and crane access, could be arranged in short periods to minimise disruption.

Although no doubt inconvenient, the adverse effects of construction work would be likely to persist for only a relatively short period, rather than being permanent. A planning condition could be used to secure details of construction arrangements, including parking and deliveries. On this basis, I conclude that the effects of construction of the proposal would not be unduly harmful, and would comply with TLP policies TA3 and DE3 in respect of parking and amenity. This matter is therefore neutral in the planning balance.

There are existing properties close to the site, for example dwellings along [address]. TLP policy DE3 requires new development to not unduly impact upon the amenity of surrounding uses. The creation of additional storeys as proposed could adversely affect the sunlight and daylight available to nearby properties.

At application stage, a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment (DSOA) was submitted. This was based on Building Research Establishment guidance. It found that the proposal would have a negligible impact on surrounding dwellings in respect of these matters. The Council were concerned that some of the drawings referred to in the DSOA, but within a separate document, had not been submitted. These were requested from the appellant but were not forthcoming. As such, this matter formed a reason for refusal.

At appeal stage, the missing drawings were submitted. The Council maintains that insufficient information has been provided. However, it has not identified what details remain outstanding. Nor does it raise substantive concerns about the conclusions of the DSOA in respect of the effects of the proposal on specific neighbouring properties.

Consequently, on the evidence available to me, the proposal would not unduly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties with regard to sunlight, daylight or overshadowing. It would therefore accord with TLP policy DE3 in this respect. It follows that this matter is neutral in the planning balance.

The Council accepts that it cannot currently demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land. It has a shortfall that is significantly below five years, with just 2.17 years of supply. There is undoubtedly an urgent and pressing need for housing in Torbay. Accordingly, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that I determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits in addressing the undersupply.

I have found conflict with TLP policies DE1, DE3, DE4, W1, TA2 and TA3, and NP policies TH8, THW4 and TH9. These are broadly consistent with the Framework, and its requirements for development which is visually attractive and well designed, and that provides a high standard of amenity to future users.

Framework paragraph 125 requires that I give substantial positive weight to the value of using brownfield land within settlements for homes, which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. It also gives support for upwards extensions, including mansard roofs, but only where they would be consistent with the overall street scene. Given my findings above however, the proposal does not benefit from the support of Framework paragraph 125.

Nevertheless, the proposal would make a positive increase in the supply of housing, by four additional units. It would make efficient use of land, reducing the need for greenfield development. Future occupiers of the flats would also make social and economic contributions to the area. However, due to the proposal being for only a relatively small number of new units, such benefits would be limited, and so carry moderate positive weight.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Given the harms that I have identified, and the weight I give to them, I consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework read in the round.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.