Appeal 6001603

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and, • whether the proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of private external amenity space.

The appeal site forms part of the rear garden of [site address] (No 92), it can be accessed from both [address] and [address]. Properties along this section of [address] are of a varying design but tend to be large and set within spacious grounds. The properties on [address] are all bungalows and tend to be set within more modestly sized plots. There is an access road, leading from the junction between [address] and [address]. The properties accessed from this road appear as backland development to properties on [address]. These properties are set within spacious plots. Generally, the properties set within spacious plots form the edge of the settlement and contribute to the transition from a rural to suburban area.

The proposal would subdivide No 92’s rear garden and a bungalow would be constructed close to the rear of properties on [address]. The existing access from [address] would be retained to provide access to No 92, and the existing access from [address] would be retained for the proposed bungalow.

No 92’s plot is larger than nearby properties. Nevertheless, the proposal would result in No 92 having a much higher footprint to plot ratio than the surrounding dwellings. In particular, No 92’s rear garden would be much smaller than neighbouring properties. Consequently, No 92 would appear cramped and as an overdevelopment of the plot when viewed alongside neighbouring development.

The proposed bungalow would also have a high footprint to plot ratio and would appear similar to the bungalows on [address]. However, it would not appear as spacious as other backland development in the area. The proposed bungalow would be the only property to the rear of the dwellings along this section of [address]. Therefore, it would not accord with the prevailing pattern of development or design of other backland development in the area.

The appeal site is well screened from public viewpoints. As such, the proposal would only have a modest effect on the streetscape. Notwithstanding this, harm would still persist. The proposed development would appear incongruous when viewed from nearby private land.

The design and external finish of the proposed bungalow would assimilate with the bungalows on [address]. The proposal would also promote an effective use and development of under-utilised land in accordance with paragraphs 124 and 125 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Nonetheless, this would not outweigh the harm to the suburban character of the area.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy 10 of Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: [name], December 2014 (CS); policies 1 and 11 of Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies, October 2019 (LPP2); and, policies 11 and 14 of [site address] Neighbourhood Plan, October 2017. These policies indicate that development will be assessed in terms of its plot sizes, and applications should demonstrate how the design of the development will make a positive contribution towards the character of the village, amongst other matters. The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance within [name], September 2025, where it advises development must have regard to the relevant area type, taking into account plot structure and grain. Furthermore, it would be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework where it indicates that planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.

The proposed bungalow would use the existing access from [address]. [name] 92’s driveway is to the front of the property and is directly accessed from [address], I suspect that the access from [address] is used infrequently. Nonetheless, the access from [address] is established and could be used more intensely without the need for planning permission.

The access from [address] is located between 3 and [address] (Nos 3 and 4), with a side elevation of each dwelling providing a physical boundary to the access. The initial section of the access is long and narrow, less than 3m wide, and then it opens up into the rear garden of No 92.

The proposal includes a parking area where a car could turn around; cars would be able to enter and exit the appeal site in a forward gear. Notwithstanding this, the turning space would not be large enough to allow larger vehicles, such as delivery vans, to turn around. Consequently, drivers of larger vehicles may enter the site along the narrow driveway unaware that they are unable to turn around and exit in a forward gear. This would result in large vehicles having to reverse a significant distance along a narrow section of road.

The driveway would only serve one dwelling and the forecasted amount of vehicle movements is modest. However, due to the limited width of the driveway, there would be an increased likelihood that large vehicles reversing along this section of the driveway would have an accident. As the side elevations of Nos 3 and 4 form the side boundaries of the access, any accident is likely to have a significant effect on neighbouring properties. Consequently, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and should be refused in accordance with paragraph 116 of the Framework.

For clarity, my assessment is based upon the Proposed Site Plan and Sections drawing1. A larger turning space could be provided but this would have a detrimental effect on the amount of private external amenity space. This may lead to alternative harm which I will address later in the decision.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety and would be contrary to LPP2 policies 1 and 11. These policies indicate that planning permission will be granted for development on sites within the built-up areas of settlements provided appropriate provision for access is made, amongst other matters.

The access from [address] runs directly next to the side elevations of Nos 3 and 4. Some of the rooms bordering the access are habitable rooms including the primary living space of one of the properties. The use of the proposed bungalow would generate a modest amount of vehicle movements. However, the noise and disturbance generated by vehicles using the access, even at low speeds, would be harmful to occupiers of Nos 3 and 4, due to the proximity of the access to the habitable rooms.

Nevertheless, the access is established. Although it may be used infrequently, it could be used more intensely to access No 92 without the need for planning permission. If the proposal were constructed, the access would only be used to access the proposed bungalow. Therefore, the access would not be used more intensely than it could currently be used. Accordingly, the proposal would not have a harmful effect with regard to the noise and disturbance generated by vehicles using the access from [address].

The proposed bungalow would be surrounded by the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. During the construction period, neighbouring occupiers may experience noise and disturbance, but the effect of this could be mitigated by a construction management plan, and it would be short lived. The additional residential activity associated with the proposed bungalow would have a negligible effect on the 1 [name]. (08)02 Rev. – Dated 18.04.2025 amount of noise and disturbance experienced by neighbouring occupiers in a suburban area.

I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. In this regard, the proposal would comply with CS Policy 10 and LPP2 Policy 1 where they indicate that development will be assessed in terms of its impact on the amenity of nearby residents, amongst other matters.

Section 2.7 of [name] advises that rear gardens should be a minimum of 10 metres deep and for 3-bedroom detached dwellings these gardens should be 110m2. There would be circulation space to the rear of the proposed bungalow but no rear garden. As such, the proposal does not strictly accord with the standard specified in the [name].

Due to the backland nature of the proposal, the garden area to the front of the bungalow would have a similar level of privacy to a rear garden. This area is over 11m wide. It is not clear from the plans, but the size of the whole patio and lawned area would be close to 110m2. The garden would be south facing and would be sited away from neighbouring dwellings. Consequently, it would receive an acceptable amount of sunlight.

On balance, whilst the proposal would not accord with the [name], it would include an amount of private external amenity space that is marginally acceptable. If the size of the proposed vehicle turning space was materially increased, the amount of private external amenity space would be unacceptable.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of private external amenity space. In this regard, the proposal would comply with CS Policy 10 and LPP2 Policy 1, for the same reasons as given above.

The proposed bungalow would help the Government meet its objective of boosting the supply of housing. Also, the appeal site is in an accessible location close to public transport and the services necessary to meet the everyday needs of future occupiers. The proposed bungalow would also include measures, such as an air source heat pump, which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These factors attract positive weight in the planning balance but do not outweigh the identified harm.

Planning Practice Guidance2 identifies that many older people may not want or need specialist accommodation or care and may wish to move to general housing that is suitable, such as bungalows. Therefore, the proposal could provide suitable accommodation for older and/or disabled people. The protected characteristics of age and/or disability may be relevant to future occupiers of the proposed bungalow. In reaching my decision, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty as set out within the Equality Act 2010. 2 Planning Practice Guidance, Housing for older and disabled people, Paragraph: 012, [name]: 63-[phone]

I have found that the proposed bungalow would be served by a substandard access and that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety and the character and appearance of the area. Future occupiers of the proposed bungalow would be the main users of the access. Therefore, the risk of using the access would be particularly experienced by people who may have the protected characteristics of age and/or disability. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that suitable accommodation that does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, could not be constructed.

Consequently, the adverse effects of the proposed development outweigh its benefits, with particular regard to eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of age and/or disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons, and fostering good relations between them and others. I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

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