Appeal 6001525

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning appeal before me relates to an application seeking permission for eight studio apartments. The planning application form confirms that the proposed use is described as “market housing”, which would provide eight additional residential units. On that basis, the proposal falls within Use Class C3, as defined by the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended).

However, within the appellant’s appeal submissions, reference is made to the dwellings being used for short‐term lets. Such a use could fall outside the definition of a dwellinghouse and, consequently, outside Use Class C3.

Notwithstanding this, having regard to the description of development, the information provided on the planning application form, and the Council’s assessment of the proposal as providing dwellinghouses within Use Class C3, I have assessed the appeal on the same basis. Accordingly, I have considered the proposal as one for residential occupation falling within Use Class C3.

The main issues in this case are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of the adjacent dwelling at No [address] having particular regard to outlook and privacy; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to the size of the proposed units; and • the adequacy of proposed car parking associated with the proposal.

The appeal site, on which the proposed development would be constructed, is set back from a major road to the rear of a two‐storey public house, adjacent to one of the main routes into Boston. The surrounding area is mixed in character, comprising buildings of differing styles, uses and heights, and there is no single defining character. The appeal site currently forms part of the grounds of the public house, and there is evidence of its former use as an outdoor beer garden. The public house, together with its attendant buildings and the adjacent No. [address], are traditional in form and materials, of a modest scale and well-proportioned in scale and appearance.

The proposed development would comprise a building of three‐storey equivalent height, with car parking located at ground‐floor level and residential accommodation on the first and second floors above. It would utilise materials including brick, render and cladding. It would have an asymmetrical pitched roof, with half hips and small projecting gables. This would result in an irregular eaves line. A notable element of the scheme is the provision of external access balconies on the east elevation, which would provide access to the main entrances of each dwelling.

The building would appear as a significant and large structure and would be noticeably higher than development in the immediate surroundings, in particular the public house and the adjacent No. [address]. Its relationship with these existing buildings, with which it would form a cluster of development, would appear incongruous. This is primarily due to its height and massing, which would render it a dominant feature on the site, both visually and spatially. The relationship with the immediate surrounding development would therefore be discordant, as it would undermine the role of the buildings fronting [address] as the primary structures on the site. Given the proposal’s location to the rear of these buildings, such a relationship would be inappropriate. The overall result, notwithstanding the mixed character of the wider area and screening of the site provided by surrounding trees, would be harmful.

I understand that matters of flood risk mitigation, at least in part, were a consideration in the design evolution of the proposal. Be that as it may, that does not obviate the need to achieve well-designed places in relation to their context.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would therefore be contrary to Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019 (the Local Plan). Amongst other matters, these policies require development to be appropriate in terms of size, scale, layout and density; to have regard to its impact on amenity, character and appearance; to relate appropriately to existing development and land uses; and to achieve a high quality of design. They also resist development that is inappropriate to the local area or that fails to maximise opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area.

The proposed development would be positioned to the rear of No. [address]. The north elevation of the building, which would comprise a largely blank gable end, would be directly opposite the rear elevation of that dwelling. Owing primarily to the height of this gable, which would be of three‐storey equivalent scale and its significant massing, the building would appear as a dominant feature when viewed from the rear garden of no.86. Moreover, its alignment and massing mean it would be an uncompromising feature in the outlook from rear facing windows of No.86. This would result in a significant and harmful impact on the occupants’ ability to enjoy the dwelling and garden.

In addition, the design of the proposed development incorporates external access balconies that would allow future occupants to directly overlook the rear garden and rear elevation of No. [address]. This would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupants of the dwelling. While the appellant has suggested that this matter could be addressed through minor design amendments, I have not been provided with any details of such changes. I must therefore assess the proposal before me, which includes the provision of overlooking access balconies.

The appellant points out that No. [address] is within their ownership. However, this does not negate the requirement to consider the impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of any future occupiers of that dwelling against policies in the development plan.

In summary, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the adjacent dwelling at No. [address], principally as a result of loss of privacy, overbearing impact and poor outlook arising from the height and proximity of the building. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 2 and 3 of the Local Plan, which require development, in terms of its size, scale, layout and density, to have proper regard to the amenity of surrounding existing development.

The proposed dwellings are described as studio apartments. The submitted drawings indicate that the proposed units would have a gross internal floor area (GIA) of approximately [address] metres. The Council highlight that this would fall significantly below the minimum standard set out in the [name] (NDSS). The NDSS specify that such units should have a minimum gross internal floor area (GIA) of [address] metres.

Planning Practice Guidance confirms that where a Local Planning Authority wishes to require an internal space standard, they should only do so by reference in their local plan to the NDSS. The Council has referred to Local Plan Policy 17, which relates to housing mix. However, this does not expressly incorporate the NDSS as a minimum standard. Nor have I have been directed to any specific wording within that policy which would be directly engaged by the proposal, and it has therefore not been determinative in my assessment.

Nevertheless, at approximately [address] metres of GIA the submitted floor plans illustrate that the internal space would be dominated by the presence of basic furniture leaving insufficient room for comfortable circulation within the apartment. Moreover, there is inadequate provision of reasonable storage for everyday items. For example, there is no obvious clothes storage space which is a basic requirement. Hence, the space would feel uncomfortable and cramped for future occupants and would fail to achieve a high standard of amenity for future users as required by paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The shortfall against the NDSS standard reinforces my concerns in this respect.

The appellant considers that some future occupants might only stay for a short tenure. Even so, that would not justify the provision of poor-quality accommodation. In any event, it is acknowledged that rental periods could be longer.

Accordingly, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, because the proposed units would be cramped. This would conflict with Policy 3 of the Local Plan which requires development to achieve a high quality of design, including having regard to residential amenity.

Local Plan Policy 36 requires development proposals to provide vehicle and cycle parking in accordance with the minimum parking standards adopted by the Local Planning Authority, as set out in Appendix 6 of the Local Plan, unless a high‐quality design can demonstrate that a lower level of provision would satisfactorily meet the needs of the development, having regard to specific considerations.

The minimum car parking standards indicate that the proposed development should provide eight parking spaces. However, the scheme would include only four dedicated parking spaces, located at ground‐floor level beneath the dwellings.

The appellant has sought to justify this shortfall on the basis that bus services are available in the area providing access to Boston town centre, and that a convenience store is located nearby within walking distance. However, little substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate how that would adequately address such proportionally significant shortfall.

The appellant has also referred to the need to retain parking associated with the operation of the public house, thereby limiting the potential for additional dedicated parking to serve the proposed development. While this is noted, it does not justify the under‐provision of parking for the residential use proposed.

In the absence of compelling justification, I find that the proposal would fail to provide an adequate level of car parking to meet the needs of the development. It would therefore be contrary to Policy 36 of the Local Plan, as an insufficient number of parking spaces would be provided in association with the proposed development.

The appellant has highlighted the challenging commercial environment facing the adjacent public house and stated that the proposal would support its commercial viability. However, while I am sympathetic to this position, I have not been provided with detailed evidence to indicate how the proposal would directly support the business. Nor is it shown that it would be the only means by which to do so. Therefore, I have afforded this consideration little favourable weight in my

The appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the planning application, including failure to communicate reasons for refusal prior to issuing of the refusal of planning permission. This is a matter to address with the Council and does not alter my decision relating to the proposal before me.

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