Appeal 6001590

The appeal is dismissed.

Applications for costs were made by [name] of Kedgling Developments Ltd against Dacorum Borough Council, and by Dacorum Borough Council against [name] of Kedgling Developments Ltd. Those applications are the subject of separate Decisions.

The application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved, even though floor plans and elevation plans were provided. The officer’s report details that, during discussions with the appellant, it was agreed that matters of layout appearance and scale can be considered at this stage, and matters of access and landscaping to be reserved. I have therefore considered the appeal on the same basis and so I have treated the details of the access shown on the Site Plan as illustrative only.

The Council have confirmed that they raise no objections to the provision of the porch. I have therefore focussed my decision on the conversion of the property to three dwellings.

At my site visit the building was empty and building work was ongoing, reflecting previous planning permissions for extensions. It was also apparent that the gardens for dwellings B and C, as shown on the plans, have been demarked on all sides by close boarded fencing around 2m in height. A hedge has been planted between this fencing and the low boundary wall at the back edge of the pavement.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; whether the development would provide satisfactory living conditions for its future occupiers in respect of their privacy; and whether the development would result in harm to the integrity of the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The appeal site is a residential corner plot on the inside of a bend in The Orchard and is located fairly centrally in the street. The Orchard is a cul-de-sac mainly comprising two-storey, semi-detached houses set behind modest front gardens of a consistent scale. Most of the other front gardens in the street are demarked by low walls or hedges with the exception of some taller hedges at Nos 16 and 18. This gives the street a generally open character. At the end of The Orchard there is a row of terraced units which differ from the remainder of the street insofar as they have their main entrance and their main garden space both facing onto The Orchard. Due to a combination of this, their terraced form and because they are much smaller than the majority of the other houses in The Orchard, they appear as a distinct and separate group.

The Council have confirmed that they raise no objection to the works to convert the building itself into three dwellings. Rather, it is the subdivision of the external amenity space to provide three gardens which raises concerns; principally the creation of the gardens to serve dwellings B and C.

The gardens for dwellings B and C would be in the area previously used as the front garden for the original dwelling. The subdivision of this area into two smaller gardens, and an area adjacent to No 3 to allow access to dwelling C, results in small private gardens at odds with the larger more open gardens across the majority of The Orchard. Indeed, even if, as suggested by the appellant, the private amenity space for the existing dwelling has already been relocated to the front, that would not be comparable to the subdivision. Moreover, the sections of fencing, which the appellant confirms would remain, appear as formalised, solid structures, taller than most other boundary treatments in front of the nearby houses.

With particular regard to the fence facing the highway, this is especially prominent due to the site’s corner position, being visible from viewpoints to the west and south along The Orchard. Indeed, it appears most prominent from positions at the bend in the road because of the slight increase in the gradient of the street. The appellant advises that the fencing could be moved further back away from the highway so that it is no longer adjacent and so could be permitted development, and that further details of this could be provided at the reserved matters stage. I also recognise the provision of fencing up to 2m in height which is not adjacent to a highway could be permitted development. However even if all this were the case, the change from a single garden to two gardens would remain and this is contrary to the character of the area.

My view is consistent with the Inspectors of numerous previous appeals which all related to the conversion of the building into a number of dwellings and all found the subdivision of the front garden would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The hedging does mitigate the visual effect to some extent, but the fencing is still very visible from positions to the west and south, particularly as some of the hedging appears to be a deciduous species, allowing a clear view of the fence during winter months. The hedging that has been planted would most likely grow taller and thicker to further screen the fencing which would reduce its effect on the appearance of the area. However, it would not be satisfactory to rely wholly on vegetation to mitigate the visual harm even noting that a hedge may be longer lasting and cheaper to maintain than fencing.

I understand that the fence close to the highway has been subject of enquiries from the Council’s enforcement team but that, at present, no formal action has been taken. Whether the Council consider it expedient to take formal action is a matter for them and it has little bearing on my considerations.

From the photos in the appellant’s statement it is apparent that there was previously a tall fence along the side boundary of the original dwelling. However that is not an uncommon arrangement given the site’s corner position, and it is distinctly different and less prominent than the provision of fencing at the corner of the plot. Similarly, there are other corner plots in the village that have tall boundary treatment. However those are all some distance from the site and so do not affect the setting within which the development is seen. There is significant vegetation at the entrance to The Orchard at [address], which is close to the site, but as this is opposite the churchyard and is not as surrounded by other houses in the same way that the appeal site is, the two sites are not comparable.

The gardens at the terraced dwellings at the end of The Orchard, and the domestic paraphernalia such as washing lines within them, are visible from the street. However, as set out above, those houses are seen separately from the houses which surround the appeal site.

Overall, the subdivision of the garden, and the provision of fencing to demark that, detracts from the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore contrary to policies CS11 and CS12 of the [name] (2013) and Appendix 3 of the saved Local Plan (2004) which together seek to ensure that development preserves and integrates with the character of the area and the streetscape. It is also contrary to policy KL4 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (KLNP) (2023) which states that development should respond to, and integrate well with, its surroundings. KLNP policy KL3 was also referred to in the Council’s decision, but I find no direct conflict with this policy as it relates to [name] and Conservation Areas and it has not been suggested to me that the site is within either.

I have considered the development on the basis that the appellant proposes to retain fencing and hedging at the front of the property. This being so, the boundary treatment that is in place is sufficiently tall such that there would be very limited views from the public highway of any domestic activities, such as sitting out, children playing or hanging out washing, taking place in the gardens. Consequently, the privacy of the future residents of the dwellings would be satisfactory. The development would therefore, in this respect, accord with Appendix 3 of the saved Local Plan which states that development should be designed and laid out so that the privacy of new residents is achieved.

[name] is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Its qualifying features being beech forests, semi-natural dry grasslands, scrubland facies on calcareous substrates and stag beetles. Natural England confirm that the SAC is sensitive to recreational pressure and so any net increase in residential units may have a likely significant effect. By comprising a net increase of two residential units the proposal could increase recreational pressure on the SAC and have a significant effect. As the competent authority, I am therefore required to conduct an Appropriate Assessment.

The Council have developed a [name] for the SAC which sets out the [name] and [name] (SAMMS) to protect the SAC, and measures to accommodate the predicted increase in pressure at Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANG) at Bunkers Park and [name]. All development that would result in an increase in residential units are required to provide a financial contribution to both SAMMS and SANG to mitigate for the effect of the resultant increased residential pressure on the SAC.

Although the appellant has expressed a willingness to provide such a contribution, I have no formal commitment, such as a planning obligation, before me to secure the required contribution. Moreover, Regulation 70(3) states that outline planning permission must not be granted unless the competent authority is satisfied that no development likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European site could be carried out. Therefore, without this mitigation at this stage I cannot conclude that the development would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.

[name] cannot conclude the development would accord with [name] policy CS26 which seeks to ensure that development contributes towards the conservation of habitats.

It is understood that the Council cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing land, and hence paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged. However this identifies that planning permission should be granted unless the policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development. Habitat sites such as SACs are areas of particular importance, and paragraphs 193 to 195 of the Framework state that development that would adversely affect such sites should be refused. This gives a strong reason for refusing planning permission and the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply.

Notwithstanding this, the net benefit of two two-bedroom homes, in a sustainable location, at a time when the Council has a shortfall of housing is a benefit. But given the small scale of the development, it carries only moderate weight.

A number of interested parties have raised concerns other than those I have addressed above. [name] am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above anyway, I need not consider those concerns further as they could have no determinative effect on my decision.

Although the development would provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupiers, it harms the character and appearance of the area and would have an unacceptable effect on the integrity of the SAC. This carries very substantial weight, and the other benefits set out above do not outweigh that.

As such, for the reasons given above, the conversion would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other material considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.