Appeal 6001200

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is supported by a [name] in response to the Council’s third reason for refusal. This has been reviewed by the Council who has confirmed that, subject to the imposition of recommended conditions, its concerns in respect of surface water flooding along [address] has been addressed. There is nothing before me that would lead me to disagree with the Council on this matter.

Given the forgoing, the main issues raised by this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook; and • whether the proposed development makes adequate provision for [name] (BNG).

The appeal site comprises a small parcel of land, accessed off [address], within the village of Tiddington. The land is the former rear garden of Midways, a large, detached property that fronts [site address] . The site is located near to the junction with [address] / [address] (the main road). It is visible from [address] and the main road, albeit the land is currently enclosed by temporary fencing to prevent access.

[address] is a single-track road comprising substantial detached houses that front the road on one side. The houses occupy spacious plots, and they largely have a traditional appearance. Likewise, houses along [site address] are large dwellings, set within generous plots, with long rear gardens that extend up to [address]. As a consequence, [address] has a spacious and verdant character. Indeed, despite its proximity to the main road, which includes commercial premises, the lane has a sedate, suburban residential feel to it.

With its modern, contemporary design, ‘L’ shaped footprint, and part single storey and part two storey scale, the proposed dwelling would not be comparable to the design and appearance of other dwellings in the locality. Its limited scale would also be markedly different to the substantial houses along the lane and beyond the rear boundary, and it would appear noticeably inferior and out of character with the properties nearby.

[name] accept that the proposed dwelling has been deliberately designed to have a striking appearance, the roof design of the two storey part of the building would be unusual and there is little justification for such a design approach. Particularly in the context of the roof designs of neighbouring buildings, and those within the wider area, which appear more traditional. As such, even within the context of the varied design of dwellings nearby, the design of the proposal would be discordant.

The Sedum flat roof planes, living green wall, and timber cladding would soften the appearance of the proposal but not to the extent that it would overcome the concerns set out above.

Although the size of the footprint of the proposed building would be modest, due to the small plot size, following the subdivision of the land from Midways, the proposed building would not have a spacious appearance. Similarly, built up close to the lane, and immediately adjacent to [address] to the side and Midways to the rear, the proposal would appear cramped. Therefore, the proposal would not be harmonious within the context of the open and spacious appearance of [address].

Furthermore, and for similar reasons to those set out above, I am not persuaded that the design of the proposal would have a visual connection with the dense, historic core of the village. Instead, it would be viewed within the context of [address], and for the reasons given above, the proposal would not be in keeping with this area.

My attention has been drawn to other examples of development nearby, whereby a contemporary design approach has been achieved. There is no question that such design could be acceptable in principle in this area. Inevitably, it is the detail and specific context of any development which determines whether it is acceptable in practice. Having considered the design and layout of this proposal, and its effect on the character and appearance of this area, for the reasons given, I consider that there would be unacceptable harm. Given this, these examples do not add weight in favour of the development. Accordingly, as I am required to do, I have determined the case before me on its own merits.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS.9 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011-2031 (the CS), and Policies H5, BE2 and BE5 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031 (the NP). These together and amongst other things, seek high quality design, and require proposals to be sensitive to the existing built form so that it reflects and complements the immediate local environment.

Two first floor windows are located in the side elevation of [address]. The two windows serve habitable rooms of that residential flat. The windows have an uninterrupted outlook over the undeveloped and open appearance of the appeal site, following the removal of trees and vegetation on the boundary.

Built up close to the side boundary, the separation distance between the side wall of the proposed dwelling and the first floor windows of [address] would be limited. As such, the side wall would be prominent from the two windows. In particular, one of the windows would have a direct outlook towards the two storey side wall of the proposed dwelling.

Due to the orientation of the windows and the juxtaposition of the proposal, there would not be a harmful loss of daylight or sunlight to those windows, as confirmed by the [name]. However, even though one of the first floor windows would have an oblique outlook down [address], by virtue of its position, scale and solid appearance, the proposed dwelling would create an oppressive outlook from the two first floor windows of [address]. To the extent that it would have an unacceptable overbearing effect on the occupiers of the first floor flat of [address], a similar conclusion reached by the Inspector of a previous appeal decision1 on the site.

Reference has been made to alterations and extensions to Midways, and the juxtaposition of that development with first floor windows of the neighbouring building beyond the side boundary. [name] accept that the extensions at Midways are close to neighbouring windows, very limited information has been provided of the circumstances of that case. Or whether the neighbouring windows serve habitable rooms or not. In any event, even though I acknowledge that consistency of decision making is important to ensure public confidence, I am not bound by previous decisions of the Council, and I have exercised my own judgement on the

Consequently, for the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook. As such, it would conflict with Policy CS.9 of the CS and Policies H5 and BE6 of the NP. These, together and amongst other things, seek to ensure a good standard of amenity, preserving the amenity of neighbouring residential homes.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) introduced a statutory framework for BNG, under which, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met.

The planning application was supported by a [name]; a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment; and The Statutory Biodiversity Metric. These 1 Appeal Ref: APP/J3720/W/24/3338262 identify a net loss of 0.54 units, which has been agreed by the Council’s Ecology Officer.

The statutory framework for BNG has been designed as a post-permission matter where a Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) must be submitted to discharge the BGC, and so development cannot commence until the BGP is approved. On this basis, the Planning Practice Guidance2 indicates it would generally be inappropriate to refuse an application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met.

With the above in mind and notwithstanding the concerns of the Council that the 10% BNG would not be met, the appellant suggests that they have the residual land holding required to offset the metric. In any event, the proposed development may not begin until the BGP is approved. Consequently, I am satisfied that BNG can be secured by the BGC.

Based on the evidence before me, the proposal would be capable of meeting the mandatory requirements for a minimum of 10% BNG, in accordance with the statutory framework. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would make adequate provision for BNG, which would accord with Policy CS.6 of the CS. This policy seeks proposals that would, amongst other things, secure a net gain in biodiversity.

The Council accept that they cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. At around 2.74 years, this represents a notable shortfall in the supply of housing land. As a consequence, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out at Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) applies. In these circumstances, Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The appellant refers to paragraph 14 of the Framework, and the fact that the NP is more than five years old. The implications are that the provisions of paragraph 14 of the Framework do not apply. However, the Framework makes it clear that weight should be afforded to policies of the development plan according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this regard, the Framework seeks the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places and requires development to be sympathetic to local character, and with a high standard of amenity for existing users. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and Policy CS.9 of the CS and Policies H5, BE2, BE5 and BE6 of the NP should be given significant weight in this appeal.

A single dwelling on former garden land would make efficient and effective use of underutilised land, which could also be delivered relatively quickly and add to the mix of housing in the area. The proposal would also be located in a sustainable location close to shops and other services and amenities and would contribute to boosting the supply of new housing, as referenced in the Framework. There would also be social and economic benefits to local services during the construction and 2 Paragraph: 019 [name]: 74-[phone] occupancy phases. It is also suggested that it would suit the needs of modern living and would be designed to comply with accessibility standards.

In combination, and in the context of the shortfall in housing land, the benefits attract considerable positive weight in my determination. However, due to the small-scale nature of the proposed development the benefits of the scheme attract modest weight overall.

No objections have been raised with regards to highways safety or parking, the effect on neighbouring privacy levels and daylight, impact on trees and vegetation or archaeology, and subject to conditions the proposal can achieve 10% BNG and satisfactory surface water drainage measures to avoid flooding concerns. The use of renewables and high-performance materials would ensure that the proposal is energy efficient also. Nevertheless, these are requirements of planning policy and taken together they are neutral factors that carry limited weight.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.