Appeal 6002105

The appeal is dismissed.

While the Council’s living conditions refusal reason identifies only 123 and [address], the evidence before me also highlights potential impacts on [site address] [address] and [address]. For completeness, I have therefore expanded the living-conditions main issue to address outlook, sunlight and daylight at these properties. Comments were sought from the main parties on this matter, and their responses have been considered.

The main issues are • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, including [site address] [address] and 121, 123 and [address], with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight; • whether the proposal would provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupants, with particular regard to the internal space and private amenity space; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and • the effect of the proposed parking arrangements on highway safety and on-street parking stress.

Turning first to the physical presence of the proposed dwelling and its effect on the outlook and sense of enclosure experienced by neighbouring occupiers. The proposed dwelling would be constructed alongside [site address] [address]. The result would be that the side flank wall of the proposed building would have an overbearing impact and affect the kitchen-dining room at [site address] by significantly reducing the useful secondary outlook provided by the side-facing kitchen window. Although this is not the principal outlook for the room, the depth and multi-purpose nature of the space mean that this side opening is an important additional source of visual openness above the boundary fence. The current absence of significant built form on the appeal site materially contributes to that sense of openness.

Given the height and proximity of the proposed dwelling, this secondary outlook would be significantly reduced, leaving a noticeably more confined and enclosed feel within a key living space. This would represent a material reduction in the quality of the internal environment for the occupants of this existing dwelling, even accounting for the fact that the outlook from the main rear openings would remain. The first-floor landing window would also lose some outlook; however, as a transient, non-habitable area at an elevated position, the degree of harm here would be limited.

121 and [address] have modest rear gardens and their primary outlook is across the open aspect presently afforded by the appeal site. Despite the relatively high density of housing along this stretch of [address], the lack of any substantial two-storey-built form directly on the boundary provides a pleasant and open rear outlook for these existing residents that contributes positively to living conditions. The proposal would introduce a solid two-storey building across almost the full width of the shared boundary and very close to it. Relative to the limited garden depths, the building’s height and depth would appear disproportionately large.

In my judgement this would create an unduly dominating, overbearing and enclosing presence when experienced from both the rear rooms and gardens, replacing the current open aspect with a continuous, high and unrelieved backdrop of built form. The result would be an oppressive sense of enclosure that would diminish the ability of occupiers to enjoy their gardens as private and pleasant outdoor spaces.

Representations also refer to adverse effects on outlook at [address], which sits at an angle to the appeal site. The proposal would introduce a prominent mass in views from this property. However, because of its orientation, the effect would be experienced mainly in oblique sightlines rather than as a continuous backdrop to the rear garden. The proposed garden to the new dwelling would lie immediately adjacent to the shared boundary with 125, maintaining a broadly comparable open aspect directly to the rear. While some harm would occur, particularly in diagonal views from rear rooms and patio areas, I consider it more limited than at 121 and 123. Even so, it contributes to the overall adverse effect of the proposal on living conditions.

The appellant relies on a Daylight and [name] prepared in accordance with the BRE 2022 guidance, which assesses [name] (VSC), [name], [name] and overshadowing. Some interested parties have questioned the validity of the survey because the consultant’s visit took place in January. However, the BRE methodology does not require site visits to be undertaken in particular seasons. The visit is used only to collect factual information, while the daylight and sunlight effects are modelled using a 3D simulation based on the fixed equinox date of 21 March. It is the model, not the timing of the site visit, that determines the results. The report also makes clear that its scope is limited to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing, and does not extend to matters of outlook or enclosure.

Although the appellant has provided further comments on the daylight and sunlight assessment, BRE guidance addresses only the quantitative effects of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing. It does not assess outlook or enclosure, which are separate planning considerations shaped by the height, depth and proximity of built form. Compliance with BRE benchmarks therefore does not preclude harm arising from an unduly enclosing or overbearing impact.

I also note the references to certain neighbouring windows being secondary, and to window 5 at [site address] not being original, but these points have little bearing on the planning judgement. The assessment concerns the effect on the living environment as it exists and is used today, and where a window contributes meaningfully to the quality of a room or garden outlook, its label or origin does not diminish its relevance.

I note that a daylight distribution table for the habitable rooms at 125 does not appear in one of the appendices. However, the document contains a wide range of VSC results for numerous windows at that property, which remain comfortably within BRE guidelines with only modest reductions recorded. On the evidence before me, and in the absence of contrary technical data, I consider it unlikely that there would be significant daylight harm at 125; the omission appears to be an administrative oversight rather than a concealed problem, although I cannot be wholly certain without sight of the missing table.

I acknowledge concerns about seasonal and late-afternoon garden use and the absence of time-of-day breakdowns. BRE, however, is designed to give an overall annual picture using consistent benchmarks. Within that framework, the report indicates that all tested gardens meet the overshadowing standard and that almost all habitable-room windows either exceed the VSC threshold or retain at least 0.8 of their former value. In broad terms, therefore, I am not persuaded on the submitted evidence that there would be a material adverse impact on daylight or sunlight when judged against these recognised national standards, with one exception.

The report records very substantial losses at the side‐facing kitchen window at [site address] . The Vertical Sky Component falls from 34.5% to 8%, and the [name] reduce from 64% to 11% annually. Although the window is described as secondary, the space is a multi‐purpose kitchen/dining room and its two functional areas do not benefit equally from the rear glazing. The kitchen area sits well back from the main patio doors and relies meaningfully on this side opening for daylight and sunlight.

Given the depth, layout and daily use of this room, I consider the report underplays the importance of the side window to the kitchen area. Taking the magnitude of the recorded losses together with the contribution the opening makes to the quality of the space, I find that the resulting loss of light would be material and harmful, with a meaningful effect on the occupiers’ enjoyment of this part of their accommodation.

Overall, the proposal would result in an unacceptable deterioration to neighbouring living conditions to some of the adjoining properties. At [site address] , the combined loss of secondary outlook and the significant reduction in daylight to the kitchen-dining room would materially diminish the quality of this key living space. For 121–123, the proximity, height and width of the proposed two-storey building would create an unduly enclosing and overbearing backdrop along their modest rear gardens, eroding their presently open aspect. Although the impact on 125 would be more limited and largely confined to oblique views, it nonetheless contributes to the overall pattern of harm.

Taken together, these effects amount to a significant and harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. They conflict with the requirements of Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 (DMP) and the [name] 2024 (the [name]), both of which seek to protect outlook, amenity and the sense of openness around existing homes. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the development plan in this respect. The proposal would also conflict with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which include providing a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposed dwelling would provide two bedrooms for three persons arranged over three storeys, with a study positioned within the roof space. The Nationally Described Space Standard does not specify a benchmark for a two-bedroom, three-storey dwelling. I note that only part of the study benefits from a head height above 1.9 metres, and areas falling below 1.5 metres should be discounted from the Gross Internal Area (GIA). Neither party has provided a clear figure for the usable floorspace within the roof space, although the submitted plans show it measures 16.6sqm. Only a small proportion of this would offer a suitable head height. As the main living accommodation would be situated over two floors and given the absence of a specific benchmark for a three-storey layout of this size, I consider it reasonable to apply the two storey, two-bedroom, two-person standard, which requires a minimum GIA of 70sqm.

I am aware that the Council has applied the standard for a three-bedroom, four-person house over three storeys. I do not find that approach to be justified because the plans clearly show a two-bedroom, three-person property. The Council has also raised concerns about the head height within the study, suggesting that a significant proportion of the loft space would not be usable as a habitable room. On this basis, I consider its use as a study or storage space to be much more likely than the creation of a third bedroom.

The combined floor areas of the ground and first floors would fall below the minimum standard on their own, although not by a substantial margin. I am unable to determine whether the proposal would satisfy the space standards overall because I do not have a definitive figure for the usable floorspace within the roof space. The responsibility lies with the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the [name]. The absence of this information results in a conflict with Policy DM10 of the DMP, which explicitly refers to those standards.

The Design Code advises that new homes should include private amenity space that is proportionate to the size of the dwelling and the character of its surroundings. The Code suggests a minimum requirement of 50sqm for a two bedroom, three-or-four-person house. I note that the Council applied the standard for a three-bedroom house, although I consider that approach to be unreasonable for the reasons set out above. The proposed garden would measure 49sqm, using the Council’s figures. Although the garden falls marginally short of the 50sqm threshold, it would be a regular, rectangular space to the rear of the dwelling and would not be subject to any constraints that would limit its usability. I see no reason why it could not provide a high-quality external amenity space for future occupiers.

[name] have found the external amenity space to be adequate, the shortfall against the 50sqm benchmark does not outweigh my concerns about the uncertainty surrounding the internal floorspace. The lack of robust evidence demonstrating compliance with the internal space standards remains a determining factor and weighs significantly against the proposal.

Accordingly, the proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Policy DM10 of the DMP, and the standard of accommodation would therefore be unacceptable.

The Design Code requires that proposals maintain established building lines and continue the prevailing street rhythm, particularly in suburban contexts, such as the appeal site, where set-back and alignment are defining features.

The appeal proposal would infill an existing gap along [address], within the space separating the two parallel street patterns of [address] and [address]. The dwelling would front [address] and would read as a natural continuation of the established linear form on this side of the street. The row comprises clusters of houses built at different times, and while there are minor variations in setback between them, the frontage is generally perceived as having a consistent building line. The only obvious deviation is formed by the dwellings on [address], whose different orientation means they do not contribute to the same street scene.

The new dwelling would sit slightly forward of 51 and [site address] [address], though the difference would be modest. The portion extending in front of [site address] would be single storey and therefore visually subordinate. Small step changes of this sort occur elsewhere along [address] and do not interrupt the established rhythm. The appeal property would sit comfortably within the [address] frontage and would be read as part of the linear pattern rather than as an encroachment into the buffer space. This aligns with the [name] requirements for a scale, setback and plot arrangement that mirror the characteristics of [address].

Although the rear garden would be modest, several properties around the junction of [address] and [address] also have limited garden depths, and this is not evident from the public realm. The plot dimensions would reflect the pattern of subdivision seen at 51 and [site address] , and the scale, roof form and proportions of the proposed dwelling would be consistent with its neighbours.

On the opposite side of [address], the gap between the two linear street patterns has already been substantially reduced, with only a narrow access separating [address] from 88 and [address]. Even with the proposed development, the spacing on the appeal side would remain more generous than that opposite. The loss of space would therefore not appear unusual or out of character.

The Council refers to the floor area ratio and the relatively low density of the surrounding development. However, the features that most clearly define the character of [address] are the physical attributes of built form and plots, including width, depth, height, set back and massing. These are the characteristics that shape how development is experienced within the street scene. I accept that the plot width is modest compared with its immediate neighbours. However, the variation would be limited and would not be out of place given the pockets of higher density development opposite and along the nearby stretch of [address]. When considered alongside the consistent set back, comparable height and familiar roof form, the reduced width would not give rise to any unsatisfactory visual imbalance in the street scene.

Accordingly, while the floor area ratio may be numerically higher due to efficient use of the plot, this would not translate into harm to the character or appearance of the area. The proposal would integrate appropriately with the surrounding built form and would maintain the visual qualities that define [address].

In light of the above, I find that the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable, such to accord with the Policies CS5, CS17 of the [name] 2011 and Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan (2015), the [name] and the Framework. Collectively, these require development to deliver high-quality design that sits comfortably within its context, respecting the established scale, form, building line and pattern of development.

Most of [address] has no on-street parking restrictions, aside from at the junction with [address] and the short-stay bays by the shop opposite the appeal site and near the school entrance. There are also restrictions along parts of [address]. Many properties on [address] have off-street parking, and the extent of dropped kerbs reduces the amount of kerbside space available for on-street parking. During my weekday morning visit there was on-street parking capacity, although I accept this was only a snapshot and that demand may be higher at other times, including evenings and school pick-up and drop-off. Several interested parties refer to parking stress in the area. However, no detailed evidence has been provided to demonstrate a consistent or significant on-street parking problem.

There is a continuous dropped kerb across the frontage of the appeal site, so this area does not operate as an off-street parking space. I am aware that neighbouring residents have sometimes used the frontage for parking while the site has been unoccupied, including the hardstanding within the site, which does not appear to relate to any existing property. However, parking across a dropped kerb is generally not permitted and use of such space is unlikely to be formalised. As the frontage does not provide a dependable on-street parking opportunity, the proposal would not result in the loss of any established provision.

The proposed two-bedroom dwelling would generate a requirement of 1.5 spaces, and since half a space cannot be practically provided, the proposed provision of two spaces is acceptable. On this basis, the number of spaces is unlikely to contribute to parking stress.

However, whilst the number of parking spaces may be acceptable, the proposed space directly in front of the dwelling’s elevation fails to provide the additional 0.5m depth recommended by the [name] in circumstances where a parking space abuts a solid object. Without this additional depth, there is a risk that a parked car would overhang the pavement, causing an obstruction to pedestrians and others using the footway.

In light of the depth of one of the car parking spaces and its position, the arrangement would likely obstruct pedestrian movements in conflict with Policy DM7 and the [name], which, amongst other matters, require that parking arrangements avoid creating obstructions to the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, should be wholly contained within the site and must meet minimal dimensional standards. These shortcomings also result in a conflict with the Framework, which requires development to provide safe and suitable access for all users and to avoid designs that obstruct pedestrian movement or compromise highway safety.

In addition to the main issues identified above, I acknowledge the other concerns raised by local residents. These include the effect of the proposal on existing infrastructure, road safety considerations, construction impacts and a number of contextual matters that fall outside the scope of planning control. However, these do not form reasons for refusal, and as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, it is not necessary for me to consider these matters further.

I also note the letter in support of the proposal, this cites a number of factors in support of the character and appearance of the proposal, a matter which I have found acceptable. Reference is made to the possibility of an obscurely glazed window, however, the use of obscure glazing would not overcome the concerns identified relating to an undue sense of enclosure from overbearing form or a loss of light.

The appellant refers to potential security benefits arising from developing a plot that has previously been used for car storage and subject to trespass. This is a general assertion that has not been substantiated. There is no evidence before me that neighbouring properties have experienced security issues, nor has it been demonstrated that alternative security measures, which would not result in the harm I have identified, have been considered.

The harm identified by way of an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would be significant. Furthermore, I attach considerable weight to the harm to the standard of accommodation for future occupiers and to pedestrian movement. These harms are such to amount to a conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.

The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites; I also understand that the housing delivery test result is below 75%. Consequently, paragraph 11dii of the Framework is engaged.

The scheme would deliver a single dwelling to the local housing supply. The proposal would therefore make a small but important contribution towards government’s target to significantly boost the supply of homes. The proposal would make effective use of land and be located in a sustainable location. I acknowledge that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area.

The construction of the proposed development would deliver temporary economic benefits. The delivery of an additional dwelling would result in additional spending within the area. Given the scale of the development, the wider public benefits including associated with an increase in housing, social and economic benefits would be modest.

The scheme would be acceptable in terms of the principle of development, the character and appearance of the area, biodiversity and affordable housing. However, the absence of harm in these respects is a neutral matter.

As set out in my reasoning above, the key policies relating to these harms, Policies DM2, DM7 and DM10 of the DMP align with the requirements of the Framework, relating to providing a high standard of accommodation for existing and future users and providing safe and suitable access for all users. Accordingly, I attribute significant weight to the conflicts with these policies.

The identified benefits associated with the delivery of a single dwelling would be modest, even if the lack of housing land supply was substantial. It follows that the conflict with relevant policies in the development plan and the associated adverse impacts, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the scheme would not represent sustainable development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it, accordingly the appeal is dismissed.