Appeal 6001722

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form used was the one for all matters reserved but the description of development states that access is included for consideration now. The Council considered the application on that basis and I shall determine the appeal in the same way. As all matters relating to scale, layout, external appearance and landscaping are reserved for future consideration, I have treated the accompanying plans as indicative of only one way in which the site could be developed.

The main issues are: whether or not satisfactory living conditions would be provided for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings with particular regard to outdoor amenity space, outlook and privacy; the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook and privacy; and whether or not the density of development would be appropriate for the site.

[name] is in a built–up area of Exeter. The immediate surroundings are mainly residential. The appeal site is an awkward shape and contains a series of workshop style buildings in a yard. They are in poor condition with a low [name] and would require considerable up grading before being suitable for modern useage. Residential development of this previously developed site would be acceptable in principle, and would accord with Objectives 1 and 3 of the Exeter City Council Core Strategy 2012 (the CS) and Saved Policy H1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 2005 (the LP) provided other planning policies and material considerations are satisfied.

The buildings are currently vacant and/or in very low key storage use and appear not to have been for many years. Re-development would improve the character and appearance of the area. As in appeal [name]/Y1110/W/22/3295247 there would be clear benefits to removing an employment use in an otherwise residential area.

The surrounding residential development is mixed in style size and design. There are terraced houses and detached bungalows on [address]; semi-detached, terraces and a block of flats on [site address] ; and a small cluster of larger, detached properties on [address]. There is site access off both [site address] and [address].

The indicative layout shows one dwelling as an infill plot on the [site address] frontage and four dwellings as a terrace in a building line continuing the frontage of the terraced houses on [address]. This pattern of development would be in keeping with the urban character of Exeter and would respect the general pattern of street blocks and grain of development locally.

The indicative plans show the proposed houses could be of a height, roof shape and materials that would match those nearby, and in the case of the terraced houses could step up the slope from [address] is a similar manner to the established terrace. These are matters for future consideration but I see no reason to suppose that a satisfactory design in these respects could be achieved.

Policy DG4 of the LP requires that people should be able to enjoy a degree of privacy and a quality of outlook which makes them feel comfortable in their homes and not feel overlooked or hemmed in in their gardens. The preamble to Policy DG4 of the LP and the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) explain this could be achieved by ensuring a minimum distance of 22m between habitable room windows or by imaginative design that avoids rooms directly facing each other or facing ugly structures.

The application form states that there would be one 2 bedroom house and four 3 bedroom houses. The proposals would not meet the LP internal room size standards. The illustrative plans show at least one way in which the subsequent [name] 2015 could be met and, on this basis, I conclude that satisfactory internal floor areas could be provided.

However, a single bedroom in each of the proposed houses would face a two storey side wall with a pitched roof above that at a distance of about 2m. The loft room for each house would rely on a small rooflight close to the ridgeline. None of these rooms would have a good outlook although the amount of light could potentially be increased by additional appropriately placed glazed areas.

Taking into account orientation the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) suggests that the minimum garden size should be 65sqm for the three bedroomed terraced houses. The rear gardens would vary in size from about 30sqm to a maximum of just over 34sqm, substantially below the SPD guidelines and also well below the average 55sqm sought by the preamble to Policy DG4(b)of the LP.

In addition the rear walls of Nos 1 and 2 [name] would be some 12.5m to 15.5m away from the rear walls of three of the terraced properties, well below the guidelines. As a result the outlook from these gardens would be constrained. The proposed gardens and patio doors would also be overlooked from windows Nos 1 and 2 [name] so satisfactory privacy would not be provided.

The gardens of the terraced properties would be significantly smaller, gloomier and less private than to be expected by modern standards. I conclude the indicative proposals would not amount to good design and it is difficult to see how the number of houses proposed could be accommodated in a more satisfactory way.

The garden for the [site address] house would also fall short of the standards but given the more southerly orientation and more open outlook this would be less gloomy than for the other houses.

The site is within five to ten minutes’ walk of high quality public open spaces including Woodwater Lane Park and Ludwell Valley Park. This is desirable but it cannot supply the day to day living amenities that a private garden would.

I acknowledge that the sizes of gardens would be considerably greater than many of the nearby terraced houses. These have rear gardens varying between about 16m.sq and about 25m.sq although some are a little larger. However, in most cases the gardens of the existing houses have a more open aspect and are not overlooked so closely by other windows. In any event the size of neighbouring gardens would not justify a design and layout that would not provide satisfactory living conditions in a new development.

Distance standards are to be applied flexibly and I acknowledge this was the case for appeal [name]/Y1110/W/21/3278271. However, in that case an additional side amenity area supplemented the rear garden which could not be the case in the appeal before me.

For the above reasons I conclude that satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the proposed houses, and in particular houses annotated as H2, H3 and H4, would not be provided. The proposal would in this respect not amount to the excellent design sought by Objective 9 of the CS, or those principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) for which good design is a key stone of sustainable development. There would be conflict with [name] DG4(b) and H2 of the LP as there would be an insufficient quality of amenity for future residents to feel at ease within their homes and gardens. Effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

The back-to-back distance between the proposed terrace and Nos 1 and 2 [name] is indicated to be between 12.5m to 15.5m which is well below the back-to-back guideline distance of 22m between habitable room windows. The proposed first floor single bedrooms are shown to have side facing windows with no windows in the projecting out-rigger. The rear windows at first floor are indicated to serve bathrooms, which are not habitable spaces and could be conditioned to be obscure glazed and with only high level opening lights. Accordingly it has been demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable overlooking of windows or gardens in [name].

The current outlook from the rear of Nos 1 and 2 [name] is towards the walls of the workshop buildings some of which are very close to the shared boundary. Although closer than to be expected the proposed houses would not have a more harmful effect on outlook from those properties than the existing buildings. Separation guidelines are to be applied flexibly and, in the circumstances of this case I find there would be no material harm in this respect.

I find that the effect on the living conditions of occupiers of adjacent properties would be acceptable in planning policy terms. There would therefore be no conflict with [name] DG4(b) and H2 of the LP in seeking a good standard of amenity for occupiers of neighbouring properties.

To make efficient use of land developments Saved Policy DG4(a) requires development to be at the maximum feasible density taking account of design constraints on the site. However, I have found that satisfactory living conditions would not be provided for occupiers of the proposed dwellings. Moreover, it is difficult to envisage how 5 dwellings of the size proposed could satisfactorily and feasibly be accommodated within the appeal site. I therefore conclude that taking into account the site constraints the proposal would amount to more than the maximum feasible density of the site.

I conclude the density of development would not be appropriate for the site and would not amount to good design. There would be conflict with [name] H2 and DG4(a) in these respects. There would also be conflict with the principles of the Framework that require effective use of land but only where healthy living conditions are provided.

Had my conclusions been otherwise it would have been necessary for me to consider the effects of the proposal on the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area and the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest in terms of the impact associated with recreational activity of future occupiers of the proposed houses. However, given my conclusions on the main issues it is not necessary or appropriate for me to consider these matters further as they would not affect the outcome of the appeal.

The proposal has been put forward to address the concerns raised by the Council with previous proposals. However, this in itself does lead me to any different conclusion in relation to the proposal before me.

The Council can demonstrate some 4 years and 3 months’ supply of deliverable housing land and Paragraph 11d) indicates that in such circumstances planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. However, Paragraph 131 of the Framework states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development as it creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. In failing to provide good design the proposal would not amount to sustainable development and would not in my judgement therefore benefit from the Paragraph 11 presumption in favour of sustainable development.

There would be a modest benefit from the provision of five much needed houses. Small and medium sized sites can be built out quickly and additional residents would support nearby services and facilities. Good use would be made of previously developed land in an accessible location. The opportunity could be taken to address any ground contamination. Together these matters provide considerable benefits in favour of the proposal.

[name] have found that satisfactory living conditions would not be provided for future occupiers, there would be conflict with the development plan in these respects, and the proposal would not amount to good design. I give these matters overriding weight given the importance of good design in national and local planning policies. These harms outweigh the benefits identified above.

I conclude that the scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.