Appeal 6001863

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development above from the appeal form rather than the planning application form, as written evidence has been provided that shows the appellant agreed to the amended version used by the Council.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • whether suitable living conditions would be provided for future occupants of the proposal with regard to privacy, outlook and outdoor amenity space; and • the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] with regard to the provision of outdoor amenity space.

The appeal site comprises a sloping area of land that sits above the level of the road, to the rear and side of [site address] . Other than at the access point the site is bound by a mixture of close boarded fencing and vegetation. The site is located within an existing area of linear residential development where bungalows sit in spacious plots above the level of the road but with frontage onto it. Some of the dwellings on the other side of the road are situated on smaller plots, nevertheless, those dwellings still front onto the road. In the wider area there is a mixture of dwelling types including single and two storey properties of varying designs. The layout of development results in a spaciousness and rhythm of built form that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

I am told that permission was granted by the Council for a bungalow that would be sited adjacent to No 11 which would have frontage onto the road. The footprint of this approved dwelling is shown on the proposed site plan, and it appears that it would follow the prevailing linear pattern of development. Whilst it did not appear under construction at the time of my site visit, the wider site had been cleared, a close boarded fence was present in close proximity to the side and rear boundaries of No 11 and a builders hoarding was present on fencing to the front of the site.

The proposal would introduce two dwellings to the rear of development located on [address]. To the rear of the site is existing residential development which fronts onto [address]. A public footpath bound by a close boarded fence and vegetation is situated alongside the side boundary of the site meaning that the site is also separated from [address], a road that sits adjacent. Given the proposed positioning of the dwellings to the rear of the site along with the lack of frontage onto any road, I find that the proposal would harmfully disrupt the linear pattern of development that is characteristic along this part of [address].

The development of the site would not appear as a natural ‘end stop’, because the proposed dwellings would be situated behind frontage development within the existing confines of the built up area of the settlement. It would therefore not appear as the completion of an existing pattern of development at the edge or end of a road or settlement.

The proposed sub-division of the site would result in two plots that would appear constrained in comparison to the prevailing spacious character along this side of [address]. The proposed dwellings would be situated in very close proximity to the rear boundary of the site, which is also an uncharacteristic arrangement along this side of the road. The size of the plots alongside the layout of the proposed built form would harmfully erode the spaciousness of the existing pattern of development and would result in a scheme that would appear incongruous.

I viewed the existing development along [address] which is accessed to the side of the public footpath that runs adjacent to the appeal site. This does appear as a different pattern of development to the prevailing linear form along [address], nevertheless, it appears as a planned development where the dwellings have generally been laid out to have frontage onto the road, and it is therefore not comparable to the proposed scheme before me now. The appellant asserts that there are no similar sites in the surrounding area and therefore the proposal would not set a precedent for other schemes. Nevertheless, I must consider the proposal on its individual merits.

I therefore find that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies BNE1 and H9 of the Medway Local Plan Adopted May 2003 (LP). These policies seek, amongst other things, that developments respect the location of buildings, spaces and the visual amenity of the surrounding area and that the character of the area is maintained. Living conditions: future occupants

The proposed dwellings would be located in close proximity to one another with the first floor level window of bedroom 4 located in the side elevations of both dwellings facing directly towards one another at a very limited separation distance. This arrangement would be significantly harmful to the privacy of future occupants.

It is asserted that obscure glazing could be used to overcome the impact on privacy, nevertheless, that would remove the outlook from both of these bedrooms completely, as no other windows are proposed to serve those rooms. The lack of sufficient outlook from the bedrooms would result in oppressive bedroom accommodation, which would result in unacceptable living conditions.

The Council refer to the [name] (interim) November 2011 (HS), although I have not been provided with a copy of that document. Nevertheless, the Council state that having regard to the HS, gardens should measure 10 metres in depth and where a site is constrained 7 metres.

The proposed private outdoor amenity space to both dwellings would be located to the side rather than the rear of the dwellings. However, the internal layout of the dwellings would be arranged so that the main living space would have outlooks to the side over the garden spaces along with doors which would provide direct access. Whilst the depth of these outdoor spaces would be more constrained than some in the area, they would still be between 8 and 10.5 metres in depth. Whilst this would not quite meet the standards set out in the HS, in this case, I find that the depth of the garden spaces would not be overly restrictive and as such it would provide enough useable private outdoor space for the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

I therefore find that the proposal would provide sufficient outdoor amenity space for future occupants. However, I find that the proposal would not provide suitable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to privacy. If obscure glazing were to be used in the window that would serve bedroom 4 in both dwellings, I find that the outlook from these rooms would be unacceptable. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BNE2 of the LP. This policy seeks that developments should secure the amenities of future occupants. Living conditions: existing occupants

The appellant asserts that the garden area serving No 11 would remain unchanged. I did witness a close boarded fence present along the side and rear boundaries of No 11, separating it from the site. However, I am told that the site previously formed part of the wider garden area that served No 11 and the proposal has resulted in the reduction in private garden space provided for the occupants of No 11.

The areas of garden to the side of No 11 are narrow and the front garden area is largely taken up by the parking area and is also not private. The private garden space available to the occupants of No 11 is therefore limited to the area to the rear. The distance between the boundary fence and the rear elevation of No 11 is more limited and does not meet the expected garden depth set out in the HS. However, I accept that not everyone requires or wants a large private garden area, and I find that some normal activities that would take place in a garden area could be accommodated, such as sitting outside, or hanging laundry out.

Therefore, whilst I find that the rear garden space at No 11 is more compact, I find that it is just about sufficient to meet the needs of the occupants and as such the scheme does not result in unacceptable harm in this respect. The development therefore complies with Policy BNE2 of the LP in relation to this main issue. This policy seeks, amongst other things, that developments protect the amenities enjoyed by adjacent properties.

I have found conflict with the policies identified above. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a sufficient housing land supply. Consequently, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged which states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having regard to key policies including securing well-designed places.

The appeal proposal would contribute two dwellings to the housing supply in an existing settlement where there would be access to services and facilities, which would have some social and economic benefits. The appellant asserts that the development would be built out using high quality materials and I note that landscaping and biodiversity net gain would provide some environmental benefits. Nevertheless, even if the shortfall in the housing land supply is substantial, given the scale of the development, these benefits would be limited.

I find that the proposal would conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework which states that developments should be sympathetic to local character, establish and maintain a strong sense of place and provide a high standard of amenity for future users. I attach significant weight to the conflict with the Framework on these matters, given the long lasting effects that would result.

Compliance with other requirements, such as internal accommodation and parking standards and a lack of harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants would be neutral considerations.

I therefore find that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to securing well-designed places. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework indicates that permission should not be granted.

One of the Council’s reasons for refusal related to the effect of the development on the integrity of the [name] and Marshes and the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Areas. However, Regulation 63(1) of The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended) indicates that the requirement for an appropriate assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent. As the appeal is being dismissed on other grounds it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further.

For the reasons outlined above, the development conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.