Appeal 6001122

The appeal is dismissed.

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 main issues are: - • the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. • whether acceptable living conditions would be provided for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling with regards to internal living accommodation.

The appeal site is part of the side and rear garden of No [site address] , a semi-detached brick faced dwelling within an established residential area. It has a frontage onto [address] but also adjoins [address]. The prevailing built forms are 2-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings. Wide green verges, parking areas and low front garden walls and hedges provide a spacious and open character to the area. The Pig and Whistle public house lies to the southeast and its car parking area, adjoining [address], reinforces the open character. The views afforded from [address] down [address] towards [address] exemplifies this spaciousness and the undeveloped appeal site contributes to this character.

The proposed dwelling would result in a pair of semi-detached dwellings becoming a terrace. Given the mix of terraces and semi-detached forms in the area, this would not be out of character and nor would the proposed design and use of materials. However, the proposed siting in the space between the existing dwelling and [address] would appear cramped and incongruous, harmfully out of character with the space that prevails at the end of rows and along streets in the area. The level of harm is significant and could not be mitigated by the imposition of conditions as it is this proposed siting of the building that is at issue.

As a result, the appeal proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area conflicting with policy CP57 of the [name] 2015 (WCS). This policy, amongst other things, requires all new developments to respond positively to the existing townscape in terms of building layout and plot size. The significant harm to the character and appearance of the area also results in the proposal conflicting with policy 6 of the Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan (JMNP) 2021, this policy requiring housing developments within settlements to have regard to the character of, and integration with, the surrounding area.

The annotations provided on the submitted proposed floorplans show a total of 50m2 internal space (29m2 on the ground floor and 21m2 on the first floor). This proposed floorspace would be cramped for 2 persons. It would fall below the amount of space that is acceptable for the number of bed spaces proposed. This would be significantly harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers. The appellants have stated in their evidence that the proposal would be for single person occupancy. However, the plans before me include a [name] that shows a double bedroom, and it would be unenforceable and unreasonable to impose a condition that restricts occupancy to a single person.

The significant harm would result in conflict with policy CP57 of the WCS. Criterion vii of the policy requires developments to, amongst other things, ensure that appropriate levels of amenity are achievable within the development itself. I have had regard to the [name] 2024 (WDG) which cites the National Space Standards (NSS). I note that the proposal would fall 8m2 below the space required by the NSS for a one bed, 2 persons 2-storey dwelling and this has informed my findings of harm and conflict with policy CP57 of the WCS.

There is common ground between the parties on matters of the proposed use of previously developed land and the accessibility of the appeal site to services and employment, the proposal being within the defined settlement boundary in the WCS. I have no evidence before me to disagree with these findings. As such the proposal accords with the provisions of policies CP1, CP2 and CP15 of the WCS which set out the Council’s spatial strategy.

There is also common ground between the main parties on the acceptability of the proposal in terms of highway safety and parking provision. Again, I have no evidence before me to indicate a different finding on these matters. There is accordance with criterion xiv of policy CP57 of the WCS that requires proposals to accord with the highway safety requirements of policy CP61. There is also accordance with policy CP64 of the WCS in relation to parking provision. I also acknowledge that there would be a neutral effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers of neighbouring dwellings (including No [site address] ) and that the appellants cite the intended enhanced environmental performance of the proposal and proposed provision of an electric vehicle (EV) charging point on site. The effect of the proposal on foul and surface water drainage, as raised as a concern by interested parties, could have been addressed by way of a condition had I been allowing the appeal. In this regard, I have no evidence before me to indicate that this would have been a matter of an extent that would singularly have justified the dismissal of the appeal. [name] been allowing the appeal the standard condition securing [name] (BNG) would have also applied.

The appellants cite a precedent at No [address], opposite the appeal site, but there are material differences in the impact of that development and the proposal. The former has resulted in a semi-detached pair of dwellings becoming a terrace of 3. However, the sense of space prevails, with parking and a side garden remaining between the additional dwelling and the road. Its impact is also reduced by the curvature of [address] to the north which avoids the prominence and incongruity that would, in contrast, result from the proposal. I have therefore considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits and, whilst I have had regard to it, the development at No [address] has not had a bearing on my decision.

The proposed private garden space would be to the rear of the proposed dwelling. It is annotated on the Proposed Block Plan as an area that would cover 46m 2. The positioning of the garden relative to buildings and its depth would avoid significant shading impacts. The area would also be greater than the footprint of the proposed dwelling according with the guidance detailed on page 75 of the WDG. In this regard, I note that the 50m2 annotated on the Proposed Block Plan is the cumulative area of both floors of the proposed dwelling and not the footprint. The footprint of the proposed dwelling would be less than the proposed rear garden space and there would be no harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposal in terms of access to acceptable external space.

Finally, I acknowledge the appellants’ concern over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The proposal would provide a small, one-bedroom house in a location accessible by foot to services in Melksham. The small size proposed would appeal to certain households and it would contribute to the overall supply and mix of homes. It would also contribute to employment during the construction phase and spend in the economy upon occupation. As such, I have already found accordance with policies CP1, CP2 and CP15 of the WCS. The accordance with policies CP61 and CP64 in relation to matters of highway safety and parking provision has a neutral effect in the overall balance as does the lack of conflict with policy CP57 insofar as it relates to the effect on the living conditions of future occupiers of neighbouring properties, and access of future occupiers of the proposal to external space. However, I have afforded significant weight to the harm to the character and appearance of the area that would result from the proposal and the harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling in terms of the unacceptably small internal accommodation proposed. It is this harm and the resultant conflict with policy CP57 of the WCS which leads me to find conflict with the development plan as a whole.

There is common ground between the parties that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. There is also common ground that, the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date for the purpose of paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework). These are the policies I have already identified in this decision. I have no evidence before me to disagree with the parties. I also have no evidence before me that the application of policies within the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance1 provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. As such it is the presumption at paragraph 11d) that is applicable.

One dwelling would contribute to the Council’s housing supply. The weight to this benefit is increased because of the use of a site within the existing settlement, and because of the extent of the Council’s shortfall in supply.2 There are also the benefits I have identified in relation to construction employment and post-occupancy spend in the local economy. However, the benefits overall are minor in scale given that only one dwelling is proposed. The adverse impacts derived from the harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits.

Given this significant and demonstrable harm, there are no material considerations including the provisions of the Framework that indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The conflict with the provisions of policy CP57 of the WCS that would result from the harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling is determinative.

For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.