Appeal 6001969

The appeal is dismissed.

An amended plan was submitted at the appeal stage1, which involves the addition of an extra parking space. This plan does not substantially alter the nature of the proposed development, and I am satisfied that the parties’ interests, including that of local residents, would not be prejudiced by the plan being considered in this appeal. Therefore, I have considered the plan as part of this appeal.

At the appeal stage, the Council confirmed that the 3rd and 4th reasons for refusal mentioned in the Council’s decision notice would no longer be defended. As these issues are no longer in dispute between the main parties I have not considered these matters further.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site comprises an area of open and overgrown grassland at the end of [site address] , a cul-de-sac situated in a predominantly residential area. [site address] mostly consists of 1.5 and 2-storey dwellings of a generally similar style, scale, and appearance, with broadly consistent front building lines. The local area mainly consists of a mix of semi-detached and terraced dwellings, including semi-detached chalet bungalows. 1 [name] plan ([name]. 09) ([name])

A pedestrian footpath connects [address] and [site address] . [address] to the immediate west of the site consists of terraced dwellings arranged around a green space. This pattern of development and the consistency of built form along this part of [address] has resulted in this part of [address] having a clearly legible and coherent identity, with a sense of enclosure around the green space mentioned above.

The proposed building, consisting of 2 semi-detached dwellings, would exhibit numerous features in common with those seen on [address], including with respect to the main roof form, the main entrance, fenestration, white boarding, and brickwork. It would also follow the building line of dwellings directly to the west on [address] and would be of a similar height to those dwellings. Nevertheless, it would be situated beyond the point at which the 2 terraces forming the end point of [address] converge. Due to this, and the noticeable gap that would exist between the side elevation of [address] (No 108) and the side elevation of the proposed building, the proposed building would appear disconnected from the remainder of the dwellings on [address].

Moreover, I observed that views of the site from within [address] are somewhat restricted by the presence of No 108 and [address] (No 106), meaning that the positive design features reflective of dwellings on [address] would not be readily apparent in the street scene along [address]. Hence, the proposed building would not assimilate well into this street scene.

The area of grassland comprising the site is a prominent feature in the street scene of [site address] , which positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area by way of breaking-up the mass of built form in the area, and providing a clear visual demarcation between [address] and [site address] . Due to the size of the footprint of the proposed building, and the introduction of a formalised parking area, the proposed development would significantly erode the function of this green space in both of these respects. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would result.

The detailed design features of the eastern elevation of the building, including its main roof gable, gable porch with entrance, mono-pitched roof, and fenestration, would mimic those at 24 [site address] (No 24), the entrance to which is located on No 24’s side elevation.

However, No 24 constitutes the exception rather than the rule along [site address] in that the front elevations of dwellings (including their entrances) on each side of the road commonly face each other. The residential unit proposed for plot 2 would not follow this arrangement. Rather, its eastern elevation, which would be prominently-sited in the street scene, would not face towards other dwellings, resulting in an incongruous appearance in its context. Considering this, and its siting at the end of the cul-de-sac, where it would not appear to form part of the run of dwellings on either side of [site address] , the proposed building would stand out as a contrived addition to the street scene.

This disruption to the existing well-planned and broadly uniform pattern of development in the area would be contrary to the guidance given in paragraph 1.3.2 of the SPD2, that good design should reinforce local patterns of development. The soft landscaping proposed on site would not be sufficient to mitigate these 2 [name] - West Berkshire Supplementary Planning Document Series: Part 1 - [name] (2006) adverse impacts. Further harm to the character and appearance of the area would be caused, in addition to that identified above.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy SP7 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted 2025) (Local Plan), which provides that, amongst other things, new development will be required to strengthen a sense of place through high quality locally distinctive design and place shaping.

No 106 is situated on a plot which is located adjacent to the footpath which adjoins the site. It benefits from a conservatory to its rear. To the side and rear of the conservatory is a patio, part of which has a formalised seating area with a canopy. A garden surrounds the patio. The side elevation of No 106 is separated from the brick wall adjoining the footpath by a single-storey projection.

The rear garden at No 106 is currently overlooked by the windows of the dwellings to which it is adjoined. This level of overlooking is to be expected in an area composed partly of terraced and semi-detached dwellings.

The 6 metres distance mentioned at page 24 of the SPD3 relates to the separation distance between windows of habitable rooms, which is not directly applicable to the scenario of overlooking into No 106’s patio and rear garden.

Paragraph 1.14.2 of the SPD advises that a distance of at least 10.5 metres is required for garden depths to maintain adequate levels of privacy. Whilst this relates to houses backing onto each other, this figure is designed to protect the users of rear gardens from harmful overlooking which results in a loss of privacy, which is the scenario under consideration in this main issue. Additionally, in my experience distances of around this magnitude are commonly used in this scenario. Hence, whilst not determinative, a separation distance of 10.5 metres offers a useful yardstick in this case.

The proposed building would contain a window serving a first-floor bedroom of the residential unit at plot 1 which would face No 106’s plot. The Council have calculated that this window would be approximately 7.7 metres away from the wall mentioned above. As this wall directly encloses No 106’s patio and rear garden, this figure offers a good indication of the proximity of that window to those areas.

Whilst the appellant has provided figures relating to the distance from this window to the side elevation of No 106 and to its conservatory, an alternative distance to No 106’s boundary wall has not been put forward. A ‘front to flank’ distance of 8 metres to a boundary fence has been mentioned in the appellant’s Planning Statement. This figure appears to relate to No 106’s boundary wall. If that was the intention, this figure is not significantly different from the approximately 7.7 metres figure given by the Council. It can be seen that the window would clearly not comply with the 10.5 metres separation distance referred to above.

As such, the proposed building would contain a window at first-floor level serving a habitable room situated in close proximity to No 106’s patio and rear garden. Although views towards No 106’s patio and rear garden would be largely at an 3 [name] - West Berkshire Supplementary Planning Document: Part 2 - Residential Development (2006) angle, views over those areas at close range from an elevated position (and clearly over the wall mentioned above) would be easily achievable.

The resulting additional overlooking into the patio and rear garden over-and-above that which presently exists would markedly worsen the existing loss of privacy which occurs due to the presence of the windows on the adjoining dwellings mentioned above. This would be contrary to the guidance given in paragraph 1.14.2 of the SPD, which mentions that at the rear of a dwelling the expectation of the resident will be that they should experience a high level of privacy and that overlooking windows, whether in neighbouring workplaces or other homes, should be avoided or be some distance away. Hence, the proposed development would undermine the use of the patio and rear garden for sitting out and relaxing, to the detriment of the health and well-being of the occupiers of No 106.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 106, with particular regard to privacy. It would conflict with Policy SP7 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals will be expected to show how they have responded positively to both national and local design guidance, including design guides or codes, and with part b. of Policy DM30 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals will be supported where there is no unacceptable harm in terms of any significant overlooking of land and buildings that results in a harmful loss of privacy.

Had my findings in relation to the main issues been more favourable, it would have been necessary to address the representations on the other issues raised by local residents in more detail. As following my conclusion below, the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, I make no further comments on these matters.

Policy SP1 of the Local Plan supports development within settlement boundaries, which the proposed development would accord with. The site is situated within an established residential area, with good connections to services, facilities, and public transport networks.

The proposed development would support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, referred to at paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Paragraph 73 of the Framework highlights that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, which applies in this case.

Considering the quantum of development proposed, of 2 residential units only, the proposed development would make a minimal contribution to the above-mentioned objectives and to the economic and social position of the local area in real terms. This is in the context of the Council not having a shortfall in housing land supply.

Local residents have mentioned that the site has been used as a children’s play area. Whether or not that is the case, as the site currently has the appearance of being overgrown and apparently neglected, the proposed development would develop land which is presently under-utilised. This is supported by paragraph 125 d) of the Framework.

Nevertheless, even though the proposed development would, in principle, make an effective use of land, taking account of my findings on the first main issue above, the proposed development would not comply with paragraph 129 e) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the importance of securing well-designed places.

The submitted Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment confirms that the proposed development would result in a net loss in habitat units. Reference has been made to the purchasing of units to achieve 10% net gain. Should this occur, the benefit in terms of biodiversity net gain would be acceptable, but not significant relative to the on-site habitat baseline. The recommendations given in the submitted [name], including the installation of bird boxes and reduced external lighting, also do not indicate that any increase in on-site biodiversity would be significant.

Collectively, the benefits of the proposed development would be minimal, resulting in little weight in its favour. These benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the significant weight given to the conflict with the policies of the development plan cited on the main issues above. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.