Appeal 6002144

The appeal is dismissed.

It was evident on my site visit that the development for which planning permission is sought had commenced and is substantially complete. I have addressed the appeal on this basis. My decision is based on the submitted plans.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether there is a loss of public open space and if so, are any associated effects acceptable.

The appeal site is located within an established residential housing estate comprising predominantly two-storey dwellings and bungalows. The layout of the estate is generally spacious, with properties typically benefiting from private rear gardens and front driveways. This sense of openness is reinforced by the provision of public open spaces and footpaths, which are interspersed with mature vegetation.

A variety of boundary treatments are present in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, including well-maintained hedgerows, brick walls, and timber fencing. Another notable feature is the presence of blocks of single-storey garages, intended to serve residents of the surrounding dwellings. Overall, the area displays a substantial degree of uniformity in terms of development scale and massing.

The appeal site occupies an end‐of‐terrace location, with an area of public open space to one side, part of which has been incorporated within the property boundary. There is a degree of symmetry with the opposite end of the terrace, where public open space is also present, and this symmetry forms part of the fundamental character of the area. This character is also defined by the estate’s spaciousness and clearly planned layout, which incorporates a network of interconnected urban spaces between dwellings. These qualities are expressed through the generous and relatively uniform spacing between blocks of development and the generally consistent pattern of open spaces across the estate. While it is acknowledged that some terraces within the area have been subject to alterations since their original construction, including changes to end plots, such alterations have generally respected the established scale of development and the intended spatial relationships between buildings. The incorporation of public open space into the residential curtilage at this location runs counter to these characteristics and erodes the sense of planned openness that makes a positive contribution to the area’s character.

The development has altered the relationship between the host property and the surrounding area. The installation of a large fence along almost the entire length of the site boundary has resulted in the creation of a distinctly enclosed plot, which undermines the visual coherence and rhythm of the streetscape. This harm arises not only from the height of the fence, but also from the associated reduction in the perceived scale and openness of the adjoining public open space. This space forms part of a wider network of open green spaces that contribute to the settlement’s green infrastructure, the effectiveness and continuity of which are diminished because of the development.

For these reasons, I find that the development fails to adequately address the requirements of Policy CNP17 of the Cramlington Neighbourhood Plan (the Neighbourhood Plan) and Policy STP6 of the Northumberland Local Plan (the Local Plan), insofar as they seek to promote green infrastructure and connectivity. In addition, the development conflicts with Local Plan Policies QOP1, QOP2, QOP3 and HOU9, which, amongst other requirements, seeks to secure high-quality design, safeguard the public realm, create a clear hierarchy of routes and spaces, make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness, and respect the style and character of existing dwellings. I do not, however, find conflict with Neighbourhood Plan Policies CNP1 and CNP25, nor with Local Plan Policy STP5. I do not find that the development forms a precedent for similar development elsewhere in the area which should be addressed on the individual merits of any proposals.

Local Plan Policy INF5(1) states that the loss of open space identified on the Policy Map, as well as other existing open spaces, sports and recreational buildings, and land, including playing fields, will not be supported unless specific criteria are met. In this instance, I consider the land in question to constitute “other existing open space” for the purposes of Policy INF5(1). I have not been provided with evidence demonstrating that an assessment has been undertaken to clearly show that the open space is surplus to requirements, nor has it been demonstrated how the loss is replaced by equivalent or better provision which are the relevant criteria which could justify the loss.

The development has incorporated an area of land that previously formed part of a larger area of public open space into the boundary of the dwelling. As a result, this specific area is no longer available for public use. [name] acknowledge that the affected land is limited in size, was not used for formal sport or organised recreational activities and was of limited value as open space, with its loss having no impact on pedestrian movement, it nonetheless constituted public open space. The development has therefore resulted in a reduction in the scale and availability of such space, notwithstanding that the remaining area will continue to be accessible and available for public use.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy INF5. I am not persuaded that there are material considerations which justify this conflict in the context of the development or the circumstances of the case.

No surrounding occupiers experience a loss of privacy, outlook, or daylight as a result of the development, and it provides the appellant with an enlarged rear garden, which is a personal benefit. However, these considerations do not outweigh the conclusions reached above in respect of the proposal’s failure to comply with the relevant planning policies.

I also note the appellant’s submission that the Council’s local services team, which is responsible for grass cutting, has raised no objection to the proposal. However, this position is neutral rather than supportive and does not, in itself, weigh in favour of the development.

The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.