Appeal 6002051

The appeal is dismissed.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who do and do not share a protected characteristic. From the evidence, my decision has the potential to affect persons with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on housing stock.

[address] is a detached dormer bungalow in a relatively isolated location on [site address] between the settlement areas of Telegraph and Porthloo and has a relatively extensive planning history.

Policy LC8(1)(b) of the [site address] Local Plan 2015-2030 (the LP) outlines, amongst other things, that where a proposal results in an increase in size (either in relation to the number of bedrooms, floors, useable floor space or footprint) of the original dwelling then it should meet and be no greater than 30% above as a maximum, the minimum space standards as set out in the [name] ([name])(or any replacement standards); unless clear justification is provided as to why a larger home is required.

Based on the evidence before me, including the supporting text of Policy LC8(1)(b) and in particular paragraph 290 of the LP, the proliferation of overly large homes can distort the housing mix and thus the general affordability of houses given the relatively limited housing supply on the [site address] .

Additionally, paragraph 289 of the LP outlines that additional space created by an extension to a dwelling, amongst other things, can be an acceptable means of addressing changes in household space requirements.

[address] has previously been extended in approximately the 1980s and circa 2023 which increased the size of the dwelling by approximately 74% above the [name] (the NDSS). Accordingly, the proposed development would further increase the size of the dwelling above the NDSS.

Paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines, amongst other things, that within the context of delivering a sufficient supply of homes, establishing need, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. Additionally, paragraph 61 of the Framework provides, that the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types of the local community. Whilst these paragraphs may refer to new homes, they nonetheless highlight the importance that homes should adapt to need.

Furthermore, whilst paragraph 135(c) of the Framework specifically refers to planning decisions ensuring developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, I am nevertheless still mindful that planning decisions should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change.

The appellant has highlighted that the proposed en-suite is required due to mobility issues as well as the necessity for frequent visits throughout the night. Consequently, this appeal decision could affect a person with a protected characteristic as outlined in the PSED. The negative effect of dismissing the appeal is that the proposed facilities for a person with a protected characteristic may not be provided.

I am cognisant of paragraph 135(f) of the Framework. Consequently, the appeal scheme would provide the opportunity for a more inclusive and accessible space with a high standard of amenity for the appellant in particular, but also possible future occupants of [address].

However, there are a number of ground floor bedrooms albeit generally smaller in comparison to the master bedroom. Nevertheless, one benefits from an en-suite bathroom. Furthermore, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the appeal scheme could not be accommodated within the envelope of the existing building without an extension. Accordingly, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate a clear justification for the requirement of the proposed development.

[name] acknowledge the small scale of the extension and that the NDSS are a minimum, the proposal would nevertheless contribute to a dwelling that is already significantly above the 30% threshold outlined in Policy LC8(1)(b) of the LP. Consequently, whilst in the future it could adapt to meet a future occupant’s needs and irrespective of any limited contribution it would make to the sale value or affordability of the dwelling as evidenced by the local market evaluation, it remains in my planning judgement, that the appeal scheme would be in conflict with Policy LC8(1)(b) of the LP.

Given all of the above, there is limited substantive evidence before me which provides a clear justification as to why the appeal scheme is required for the purposes of Policy LC8(1)(b) of the LP. Consequently, the appeal scheme would conflict with Policy LC8(1)(b) of the LP insofar as it seeks to ensure a balanced housing stock.

The Council has not raised the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding areas as a putative reason for refusal. Based on the evidence before me I find no reason to disagree with its conclusions on this matter.

The appeal site is located within the [site address] Conservation Area (the CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. The CA comprises the granite archipelago of Scilly which contains a plethora of islands, islets and stacks. It includes prolific [name] cairns, prehistoric settlements, historic fortifications and maritime infrastructure as well as glass houses associated with flower farming amongst other things. Bearing in mind the extent, nature and location of the appeal scheme, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved. I note that the Council has raised no objection in this regard either. Nevertheless, this lack of harm is a neutral factor and does not amount to a consideration in support of the appeal or alter my overall conclusion on the main issue.

On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) in England and Wales became ‘National Landscapes’.

Paragraph 189 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 requires that relevant authorities must now ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name]. This replaces the previous duty on relevant authorities to ‘have regard to’ their statutory purposes. I have a statutory duty to consider whether the appeal scheme would further the statutory purposes of the [site address] National Landscape. Given there would be limited development associated with the appeal scheme, in my planning judgement, the appeal scheme would, conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the [site address] National Landscape.

The Council has not raised an objection in this regard either nor in relation to the relevant heritage coast, however a lack of harm in these matters are neutral factors in my determination of this appeal.

Based on the evidence before me, I have found that the appeal scheme would result in a harmful effect upon the existing balance of housing stock having regard to Policy LC8(1)(b) of the LP.

There is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate that the appeal scheme would result in a significant improvement regarding the character and appearance of [address]. Consequently, in my planning judgement, it attracts limited weight.

Additionally, there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate that the proposal would significantly improve the dwelling’s performance given its scale. Furthermore, the positive economic benefits associated with the purchasing of building materials and employment of local tradespeople would also be modest due to the scale of the proposed development.

Therefore, the weight I afford these benefits is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found.

Furthermore, I have had due regard to the PSED as set out under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. However, the harm that would result from the appeal scheme with regard to the housing stock outweighs the benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. Thus, I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

The material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.