Appeal 6001222

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. • The quality of living conditions for existing and future occupiers with particular regard to overlooking. • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety with particular regard to car parking.

This part of [address] is generally characterised by terraced properties with long, narrow back gardens which provide a pleasant sense of spaciousness behind the buildings and important separation from properties to the rear. There are some small, secondary, outbuildings nearby and some properties, including [address], have subservient extensions. Generally, their scale and character maintains the positive features of the open garden areas.

[site address] has been converted to four flats. 198A and [address], and two are accessed via the garden, signposted as 198B and 200B. To the rear of the building, there is open garden land including hardstanding for car parking with access onto [address]. There is also a pronounced level change from the road and hardstanding to the garden.

The proposed development would introduce a single storey, flat roof building across the full width of the plot, which spans both no 198 and 200 and would occupy around 40% of the garden area.

The Proposed Elevations and [name] plan shows a height of around 2.7m between the floor level and the top of the roof. However, it is unclear from the submitted drawings, including the drawing titled ‘Boundary Conditions’ whether the floor would be level with the road or the lower garden level. This is directly relevant to the planning considerations relating to scale, character and appearance. As such it has not been demonstrated that the overall height of the proposed annexe would appear suitably modest in this location. In addition, the scale of the building, in particular its width across the shared garden areas would be larger than other outbuildings nearby. The annexe would be clearly seen in public views from [address].

There is no objection from the [name], nevertheless, for the reasons above, the proposed development would be an overly large building in this context. It would be unacceptably dominant and would harmfully undermine the spaciousness of the rear garden which is an important characteristic of this location.

Therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) (LP), Policy HO2 of the Arches Chatham Neighbourhood Plan (2024) (NP). Together, these require the design of development to be appropriate in relation to the character and appearance of the built environment and respect the valued characteristics of the area, amongst other things.

There are windows and doors to the lower ground floor rear elevation which face directly onto the garden. These provide access to and serve the kitchen/living areas of the two lower ground floor flats.

The proposed building would be an annexe to no. 200B. It would have two windows to a bedroom and kitchen/living area, which would provide the only outlook to the annexe. These face directly towards the rear of the existing building in close proximity. They would create new, direct views between the occupiers of the annexe/no 200B and the occupiers at 198B.

Planting could provide some screening, however it would take time to mature and views would be likely when trees are not in leaf. The landscape plans appear to show a cycle store outside the rear window to no. 198B. Given this position, in order to maintain sufficient living conditions for the existing occupiers, including outlook and light, I am not satisfied that such a structure would be sufficiently tall or opaque as to provide meaningful screening. Therefore, this would not overcome the harm identified above. Consequently, there would be direct views between the two properties in close proximity which would be harmful to the privacy of the occupiers.

Therefore, the proposed development would result in poor quality living conditions for existing and future occupiers with particular regard to overlooking. As such, it would be contrary to Policy BNE2 of the LP which requires that development protects the amenities of future occupiers and nearby properties including with regard to privacy.

The existing hardstanding for car parking is intended to provide two car parking spaces for the occupiers of the flats. The use of part of the site for car parking is secured by planning condition, however this appeal is not for the removal or variation of any condition. Notwithstanding, this matter is considered on the basis of the submissions in this case. The crossover is next to the pavement and bollards which restrict vehicle access along [address] so there is no through vehicle traffic. Cars using these spaces are required to reverse on or off the site, however there is no evidence that this practice is harmful to highway safety in this particular area.

The appeal site is in an accessible area served by bus route with services nearby, with lower levels of car ownership. The appellant also states that the hardstanding is not well used for parking by existing occupiers due to safety concerns, rubbish and occupiers have found it impractical to maintain the spaces free and available. Albeit at the time of my site visit there was a car parked here. However, there is little before me regarding any measures that have been put in place which seek to improve the security or availability of the parking area. Consequently, even though they are not currently well used, it is likely that future occupiers would use the space to park two cars. As such, the loss of the hardstanding area would result in an additional two cars parking on street.

Roads in the surrounding area appear to be heavily parked. Whilst the appellant indicates availability of parking spaces using google maps, there is no detail about the timing or age of this information. As such, in the absence of substantive evidence such as a parking stress survey, I am not satisfied that there is capacity to accommodate additional car parking on street in this location.

The reinstatement of the crossover could increase the on street car parking capacity, however it has not been demonstrated that the width of the crossover would enable the provision of an additional space. In any case, it would not replace the two spaces that would be lost.

Although there would be unlikely to be an increased level of parking associated with an annex, the proposed development would result in the loss of two off street car parking spaces, and these vehicles would be required to park on the street. There would be insufficient spaces available to incorporate the displaced parking from the site. This would lead to cars parking in unsuitable and unsafe locations.

As such, the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policy T1 of the LP and Policy ST4 of the NP. Together these require that opportunities for on street parking should be supported by a parking stress survey, and that the development should not significantly add to the risk of traffic accidents.

Policy T13 of the LP requires vehicle parking provision in accordance with the adopted standard. As such, the policies set out above are more relevant to this case.

The Council are concerned that the proposed development would create a separate self contained unit with its own facilities. Nevertheless, the description of development refers to the proposed outbuilding as an annex, and the appellant states that it would be occupied by a relative of the associated existing flat. If the structure were not built or used as proposed, or if there were a material change of use to create a separate dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and the building would be at risk of enforcement action if permission were not granted. There is no proposal for a separate dwelling before me and the appeal has been considered on this basis. Consequently, the proposed development would increase the size of an existing residential unit which adds variety to the area’s housing stock.

The appellant states that a development of a similar volume could be constructed under permitted development rights. However, the building is occupied as flats and so it would not benefit from the permitted development rights relating to dwellinghouses. As such, there is not a real prospect that these works would take place under permitted development and I afford limited weight to this matter.

Photographs of flytipping and rubbish have been submitted and the appellant states that the site is used for antisocial behaviour including drug taking. The proposed building would occupy the area in which these unsafe and unsightly practices occur. However, taking into account the absence of detail of alternative measures to prevent such behaviour, I am not satisfied that the proposed development is the only or least harmful way to achieve this outcome. As such, in these circumstances, this attracts modest weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

Overall there are modest benefits associated with this proposal. On the other hand, the appeal scheme would be harmful to character and appearance, highway safety and living conditions. Taken together the harm to these multiple important matters would be serious. As such these modest benefits do not outweigh the harm identified above.

The proposal 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, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.