Appeal 6001933

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has accepted the amended plans submitted as part of the appeal. These amendments are to correct typos and clarification of when a drawing is handed. I do not consider that these amended plans would prejudice any party, on this basis I have accepted these revised plans.

The two dwellings on Plots 4 and 5 have been constructed, though significant internal work is still required.

The submitted plans show other changes to the approved layout that go beyond the siting and details of Plots 4 and 5. Whilst, I note that conditions 11 and 12 of DC/18/1206/FUL refer to biodiversity improvements and soft landscaping, which the Council has made reference to the impacts on these caused by the proposed changes to Plots 4 and 5. On this basis, I will only consider the changes that directly relate to Plots 4 and 5 and make no judgement on the wider site layout and if the appellant seeks to regularise these it will be for the Council to form a judgement under a separate application.

While the Council’s decision notice only contains one reason for refusal, it contains two separate elements. I will, therefore, deal with them in turn.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent properties on The Pines and [address], with particular reference to privacy and outlook.

Plots 4 and 5 form an end of the cul-de-sac road of [address], these two detached dwellings are both one and a half storey that have significantly sized dormers in the side elevations. The dwellings also have a gable projection extending towards one another that has a slightly reduced ridge height to that of the main dwelling element. The front garden spaces of Plots 4 and 5 have been significantly reduced and the plots parking spaces moved into a newly formed parking courtyard.

The adjacent dwellings on The Pines and [address], also referred to on the plans as [address], are single storey properties. While the dwellings on [name] are three storeys, with the second floor in the roof space. The dwellings on Plots 4 and 5 are visible from The Pines, [address] and [name].

It is noted that the dwellings of Plots 4 and 5 have been moved closer together and the overall massing of the dwellings has been increased, specifically due to the increase in the side gable projections. This does lead to the detriment of the overall design of these two dwellings, which is exacerbated by the reduced potential, specifically to the front of these plots, to provide meaningful soft landscaping.

[name] note the Council has also raised objections regarding views from The Pines and [address], these views are at distance and behind existing dwellings. Based on the evidence presented and my site visit there is negligible impact on the character and appearance of these two street scenes from the changes over the approved dwellings. I also note that the dwellings of Plots 4 and 5 would still be a significant set down from the dwellings on [name]. Therefore, while I find significant harm due to the increase in mass, the harm is limited to the street scene of [address].

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal does not preserve the character and appearance of the local area. On this basis the proposal does not comply with policies SP4 and LP9 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2024-2041 July 2025 (Local Plan) that in total seek to create high quality designed development that is appropriate for its location.

Both dwellings (Plots 4 and 5) have been repositioned on the site. With dwelling on Plot 5 having been moved so its side elevation now faces both the rear gardens of 2 and [address].

The proximity and size of the dormer windows on Plot 5 to the property of [address] would cause a new and significant loss of privacy to the occupants of [address]. It would not be possible to condition these windows to be fixed and obscurely glazed, as this would prevent the future occupants of this plot from having suitable living conditions in this habitable room space. The new positioning of Plot 5 would have limited harm to the outlook of the occupants of 2a, as while Plot 5 is noticeably more visible it is set away from the common boundary. While the moving of Plot 5 has some benefit to the privacy and outlook of the occupants of [address], this does not overcome the harm to the occupants of 2a.

The proposed elevations of Plots 4 and 5 do not contain any windows above ground floor level facing The Pines. It would also be possible to removed permitted development rights to prevent this in the future. The space between Plots 4 and 5 and the boundary line with The Pines prevents there from being any loss of outlook from the adjacent occupants on The Pines. On this basis there is no material harm caused by the proposed change to the occupants of The Pines.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal causes significant harm to the amenity of the occupants of [address], primarily due to the loss of privacy. On this basis the proposal does not comply with policies SP4 and LP9 of the Local Plan, which seek to protect residential amenity including privacy.

It is noted that the Council has raised objections that the proposal currently does not provide measures that would lead to a biodiversity improvement on site and on this basis does not comply with policy SP8 of the Local Plan. However, this reason and this policy did not form part of the refusal of the application and significant weight is given to this. While the space for meaningful landscaping is more limited with the revised plot details, it is still likely that wildlife friendly planting could be planted as well as measures such as bat/bird boxes and ‘insect hotels’ being provided that could allow compliance with this policy.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.