Appeal 6001530

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is accompanied by a [name] (SWDS). However, during the course of the appeal it came to light that the Council had not submitted the correct version of its Appeal Statement of Case related to LLFA ([name] and Drainage) in response to the SWDS. Following receipt of the correct version, the appellant was given an opportunity to provide comments on it.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area including whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (NL) with regard to the effect on dark skies; • whether the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy; and, • the effect of the proposal on flood risk with particular regard to surface water drainage.

The appeal proposes the demolition of the existing two-storey dwelling, which is modest in scale, but nonetheless has a certain charm by reason of its simple design, materials and proportions that sits comfortably within its plot, with space retained between the main dwelling and its side boundaries.

[site address] in the immediate vicinity of the site has a semi-rural character, comprising predominantly two-storey and chalet-style dwellings with first-floor accommodation contained within the roof space, and including some recent infill and replacement homes. As reflected on the appeal site, properties in the immediate area generally comprise simple forms, with relatively limited number and size of openings, and restrained architectural detailing.

The proposed development by reason of a combination of its architectural detailing and scale would appear significantly larger than the existing dwelling and out of character with it and the other nearby dwellings. The extensive fenestration detailing, including the portico and triangular pediment projection, extensive glazing and associated detailing, combined with the dwelling spanning almost the full width of the plot, would create a notably imposing frontage elevation that would dominate the plot and appear visually prominent in the street scene when viewed down its vehicular entrance. This would be the case despite the proposal following the existing building line and including a garage forward of the front elevation that is characteristic of adjacent dwellings.

[name] acknowledge other recent developments in the area demonstrating a direction towards larger new, extended and infill dwellings and note that recent developments at [address], Lindisfarne and [address] include roof-space accommodation, projecting garages and positions close to their boundaries, none of these would be of comparable architectural detailing. In contrast with these and other nearby dwellings, the proposed dwelling features an asymmetrical design with a large number of upper-floor windows, together with tall openings, and a central imposing entrance feature, all of which, alongside the proposed dwelling being positioned close to its boundaries, would create a visually dominant façade and more imposing presence. This appearance would therefore be at odds with the simpler elevations and window detailing of neighbouring and nearby properties, including the existing house on the site, that integrate more subtly with the area’s sylvan character due to a combination of their smaller scale and more simple detailing.

I have had regard to the appellant’s Design and [name] and Appeal Statement referring to a similar design used in Basingstoke & Deane. However, given the above, and in the absence of substantive details demonstrating that that proposal is in a very similar context, I find that the proposal fails to demonstrate suitable consideration of the local design context of the immediate area.

The appeal site lies within the NL. Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires me to give great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes while Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 require relevant authorities to seek to further the statutory purposes of National Landscapes. In this regard, the Council raise concerns regarding an impact upon dark skies from the number and size of window openings.

As stated above, the proposed dwelling features a large number of window openings. Although this could result in significant light spill to the dark night skies of this part of the NL, the site is located close to a number of dwellings and subject to conditions controlling external lighting, rooflight specifications and darkened glass, the resulting light spill would not be substantial and would not unduly increase the visual prominence of the dwelling within the street scene and NL. As such, with regard to any effect on the dark night skies, I am satisfied that the development will leave the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the NL unharmed with the duty to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the NL and duty to seek to further the statutory purposes of the NL discharged. In this regard the proposal would comply with Policy SP2 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 June 2025 (LP) that states the strong sense of remoteness, tranquillity and dark night skies, particularly on the open downland, should be preserved.

It follows from the above that although the imposition of conditions can to ensure that the proposal conserves and enhances the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape with particular regard to the effect on dark skies, by reason of its architectural detailing and scale, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it is contrary to LP Policy SP7. Amongst other things, this states, that new development will be required to strengthen a sense of place through high quality locally distinctive design and place shaping and taking opportunities available for conserving and enhancing the character, appearance and quality of an area. For the same reasons, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Chapter 12 of the Framework that seeks to achieve well-designed places.

LP Policy DM30 specifies the matters to be taken into account to assess how a proposal affects the living conditions of both existing and future occupants. These matters include ensuring that development does not cause unacceptable harm through significant overlooking of neighbouring land or buildings that would result in a detrimental loss of privacy.

Paragraph 11.108 of the supporting text to LP Policy DM30 states that all new development including Juliet or standard balconies should aim to reduce and remove any potential for overlooking and loss of privacy between neighbours

The appeal proposal includes a first-floor balcony on the proposed southwest rear elevation of the dwelling. The balcony would sit approximately 3.3 metres above ground level, approximately 9.5 metres from the boundary with Lindisfarne and 15 metres from the boundary with Broomshill. The balcony sits above the ground floor Orangery and is considerable in size enabling use by a number of people. Given its elevated position that projects beyond the rear elevations of the neighbouring dwellings and given the separation distances involved, users of the balcony would be able to look directly into the gardens of neighbouring properties, particularly the likely more usable areas to the immediate rear of those dwellings, resulting in a harmful loss of privacy for their occupants.

Although a relatively tall close-boarded fence separates the site from Lindisfarne, it offers only limited screening from the raised balcony. At the time of my site visit, some vegetation along the boundary with Broomshill provided some screening of views, but not to a sufficient degree given the lack of leaf coverage and gaps between the planting. Taking into account the balcony’s position, height, size, and proximity to neighbouring boundaries, it would give rise to significant harm to the privacy of the occupiers of both Lindisfarne and Broomshill.

The appellant refers to similar separation distances being used and commonly accepted within housing developments to maintain privacy. However, those standards generally relate to fixed windows, not to balconies that provide outdoor space where people may spend extended periods, increasing opportunities for overlooking.

In conclusion in relation to this matter, the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy. As such, it is contrary to LP Policy DM30, the aims of which I have outlined above. For the same reasons, the proposal would be contrary to Paragraph 135 f) of the Framework that seeks a high standard of amenity for existing users.

As stated in the [name] above, the appeal is accompanied by a SWDS comprising a revised drainage strategy and some supporting calculations. However, the SWDS does not provide full details of the drainage assets currently on site, detailed calculations of existing rates and volumes of surface water run-off and does not assess or consider that ground conditions comprise underlying clay that the Council has provided evidence of.

The Council have also identified that approximately 130m from the site a recent project required the replacement of a deep bore soakaway that it states suggests poor drainage conditions. The Council has requested further evidence to demonstrate that infiltration is possible through the submission of ground investigation results. Alternatively, it states that details of another solution that does not rely on infiltration could be submitted and implemented if ground investigation conditions later show that infiltration is not possible. In the absence of such details the Council state that the proposed strategy is not supported by sufficient evidence to justify its use. Furthermore, the Council advise that the SWDS is short in detail in relation to maintenance and management post installation and uses incorrect design criteria in their calculations. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to disagree.

Drainage strategies can have a major bearing on the overall design and layout of a development. As a result, relying on planning conditions to secure ground investigations carries a risk if infiltration proves inadequate or unworkable. In such a scenario, the appellant would need to redesign the drainage approach, with potentially significant and currently unknown implications for the wider site. As such, I do not find the imposition of a condition to deal with this matter acceptable in this instance for these reasons.

Furthermore, the SWDS dismisses the use of a number of [name] (SuDS) on the grounds of the site layout providing limited space and being a small residential plot. However, given the size of the appeal site with considerable outdoor space to its front and rear, I do not find these arguments to be robustly evidenced.

It follows from the above that the proposal would have a harmful effect on flood risk with particular regard to surface water drainage. As such, it is contrary to LP Policy SP6 that, amongst other things, states that on all development sites, in order to restrict or reduce run-off, surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner through the implementation of [name] (SuDS), that for pre-developed sites a restriction to greenfield run-off rates and volumes should be provided, unless it can be demonstrated that this is not achievable, and that SuDS should also provide other benefits where possible. For the same reasons the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the Framework that seek to reduce the risk of flooding.

I have had regard to the proposed development being acceptable in principle in a sustainable location whilst benefitting from a suitable access, outdoor space, provision of car and cycle parking and causing no harm to trees, protected species, flood risk or archaeology and providing 10% biodiversity net gain. However, as these are requirements of local and national planning policy and guidance, I give them very limited weight.

I have also had regard to benefits from the provision of a new dwelling that could be built out quickly by a small/medium sized housebuilder and the associated economic benefits including additional [name] payments. Nonetheless, given that the proposal is for a single replacement dwelling, I give these benefits limited weight.

Overall, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.