Appeal 6002204

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for proposed single dwelling with parking is refused.

The description of development above reflects the revised description, which was agreed between the appellant and the Council at the application stage.

The appeal is made against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. In response to the appeal, the Council has prepared a statement outlining its view that permission should be refused. I have had regard to this statement and the suggested reasons for refusal within it in framing the main issues below.

The appellant has submitted amended plans at the appeal stage, which seek to address the Council’s consultees responses. The Council had the chance to comment on the amended plans. Although the appeal’s process should not be used to evolve a scheme, I am satisfied that in this case, given my overall decision, and that the amendments are not substantial, accepting the amended plans would not prejudice other interested parties. Therefore, I have considered the proposal based on the amended plans.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties Nos 2 and [address] (Nos 2 and 4); • Whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for the future occupiers; • The effect of the proposal on highway safety; and • Whether the proposal would make adequate provision for biodiversity net gain (BNG).

The appeal site comprises a two‐storey, end‐of‐terrace dwelling occupying a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The property is set well back from the street and includes front and rear gardens, with vehicular access taken from [address]. High hedges wrap around the front and northern side boundaries, and the opposite corner property on [address] features similar boundary planting. This mirroring of greenery on both corners contributes positively to the street scene. The row of terraced dwellings along [address], including the appeal property, follows a consistent building line and benefits from rear gardens of similar length. Both the established building pattern and the uniform garden lengths make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would introduce a detached two-storey dwelling to the rear of host dwelling, No 2, which would face [address], would have vehicular access from [address], and a garden to the rear. Two off-street parking spaces would be provided to the front of No 2, with access from [address].

The introduction of a dwelling in this location would shorten the length of garden for No 2 and would disrupt the established pattern of development. Due to a combination of its siting and scale, the dwelling would appear as an incongruous and cramped addition which would harmfully affect the character and appearance of the area.

The dwelling would incorporate design elements inspired from neighbouring dwellings, such as the front gable feature, traditional materials, and a hipped roof. However, these would not be sufficient to overcome the harm identified above.

The Rushcliffe Design Code 2025 (RDC) states that in-curtilage parking located in front of the main building line must be integrated with an area of soft landscape that is equal to or greater than the size of the parking area. The introduction of two off-street parking spaces to the front of No 2 would involve the removal of the existing front hedge and a substantial reduction in the size of the front garden of No 2. The submitted plans do not demonstrate that the proposed off-street parking for No 2 would be adequately integrated with an area of soft landscape. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would lead to a considerable reduction in greenery to the front of No 2, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the street scene.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it conflicts with Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: [name] 2014 (LP P1), Policies 1 and 11 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies 2019 (LP P2), and the guidance outlined within the RDC, which collectively require developments to respond positively to the local environment by reinforcing valued local characteristics. It would also conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which at paragraph 135 states that development should be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment.

The proposed dwelling would have a staggered siting in relation to No 2 dwelling and its remaining rear garden. The proposal would lead to a significant reduction in the length of the garden for No 2. The part of the rear garden next to No 2 is currently hard-surfaced and accommodates a shed and bins. The dwelling has a single storey projection that extends beyond its rear and northern side elevations. High hedges enclose the sides of No 2’s garden. The application form indicates that the existing house, No 2, is a two-bedroomed dwelling, while the Council states that No 2 has 3 bedrooms. No floor plans were submitted for No 2. The submitted drawings do not provide a figure for the total area of garden proposed for No 2. Based on the submitted evidence it is unlikely that the remaining garden for No 2 would achieve the RDC’s requirement of a 10 metres length garden. Even if the remaining rear garden of No 2 would satisfy the minimum [address] metres area standard for a two-bedroom house, as outlined within the RDC, the quality of the rear amenity space would be affected, due to the existing constraints of the space coupled with the introduction of the driveway for the proposed dwelling, which would be an additional source of noise. Accordingly, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposed private amenity space for No 2 would be sufficiently adequate as to provide acceptable living conditions for its occupiers.

The proposed dwelling would sit close to the southern side boundary shared with No 4 and would have first floor windows serving habitable rooms facing towards the rear garden of No 4. Notwithstanding the existing vegetation which provides a degree of screening, the proposal would introduce direct views towards the rear part of No 4’s garden, which would increase the levels of overlooking to a detrimental degree, and thus result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 4, to the detriment of their living conditions.

Consequently, the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2 in terms of quality of private amenity space and those of No 4 in terms of privacy. Thus, it conflicts with LP P1 Policy 10 and LP P2 Policies 1 and 11, which collectively require developments to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. It also conflicts with the aims of the Framework, which at paragraph 135 requires developments to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposed dwelling would have its private outside amenity space to the rear. Based on the Council’s figure, which was not disputed by the appellant, the proposed rear garden for the new dwelling would meet the RDC requirement in terms of the minimum garden area of [address] metres. However, due to the layout constraints of the resultant plots, the rear garden of the new dwelling would be directly overlooked by the first-floor rear windows of No 2, of which at least one window appears to be serving a habitable room. Due to the limited separation distance between the rear elevation of No 2 and the proposed rear garden for the new dwelling, the proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions for the future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy.

The proposed dwelling would have two bedrooms located at the first-floor level. The submitted floor plans show one bedroom with a single bed, and one bedroom with a master bed. The Council indicates that the proposed dwelling would have a gross internal area (GIA) of approximately [address] metres. The appellant’s site plan shows a GIA figure of [address] metres and confirms that the proposed new dwelling would accommodate 3 persons and 2 bedrooms.

The Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard states that for a two-storey, two-bedroomed dwelling with a number of bed spaces (persons) of 3 the minimum GIA is [address] metres. Based on the evidence before me, the proposal would comply with this requirement.

Accordingly, the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the future occupiers, particularly in terms of privacy. Thus, it conflicts with Policy 10 of the LP P1 and Policies 1 and 11 of the LP P2, which collectively require developments to not cause a significant adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers. It also conflicts with the aims of paragraph 135 of the Framework, as set out above.

The proposal includes a vehicular access and parking area to serve the proposed dwelling at the rear of No 2, with access from [address]. The Council has drawn my attention to the Nottinghamshire County Council Highway Design Guide (HDG). The submitted site plan shows two off-street parking spaces positioned at right-angles to the new dwelling, which based on the figures provided would meet the minimum standards as outlined within the HDG.

However, Part 4.1 of the HDG indicates that the adequacy of a parking layout is not solely dependent on bay dimensions. Instead, the guide emphasises the need for sufficient manoeuvring space to enable vehicles to enter and exit parking areas safely and, where appropriate, in forward gear. The submitted plans do not demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would have adequate manoeuvring space. Consequently, vehicles parked at the new dwelling would be likely to reverse either partly blind or with multiple shunting movements, increasing the risk of conflict with pedestrians and other road users on [address].

In terms of the proposed parking for No 2, Part 4.1 identifies that when parking areas are confined between boundaries, such as buildings, walls, or hedges, wider clearances are necessary to allow realistic turning movements, door opening, and safe pedestrian circulation. The HDG provides indicative minimum widths for double-width driveways in such circumstances, stating that where boundaries exist on one or both sides, the required clear width generally rises above 6 metres. The site plan shows the side hedge at No 2 to be retained, with no marked widening or clearance adjacent to the proposed parking spaces. As such, the available width appears considerably less than that outlined in the HDG, limiting the ability of vehicles to swing or adjust position. Thus, I am not persuaded, based on the submitted plans, that the proposed parking layout for No 2 would achieve safe access.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The development would therefore conflict with LP P2 Policies 1 and 11, which collectively require developments to provide a suitable means of access and parking without detriment to highway safety. It also conflicts with the aims of the Framework, which at paragraphs 115 and 116 states that safe and suitable access to the site should be achieved for all users and that developments should be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The objective of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is for developments to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. This increase can be achieved through onsite biodiversity gains, registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits.

The mandatory condition requiring biodiversity net gain of at least 10% is imposed on permissions granted pursuant of a planning application made on or after 12 February 2024 or 2 April 2024 for small developments such as this. Given that the application was made after 2 April 2024, the mandatory requirement applies.

Paragraph 187 of the Framework states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

Although the appellant refers to the de minimis exemption under the BNG Regulations, the submitted [name] confirms that the site comprises modified grassland and multiple hedgerows of local ecological importance, and that the development would result in the loss or degradation of these habitats. The footprint of the proposed dwelling and driveway would exceed [address] metres and would be sited on land identified as habitat in the ecological appraisal. The proposal would therefore result in the loss of more than the threshold amount of habitat allowed under the exemption. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that habitat loss would fall below either the [address] metres threshold for area‐based habitats or the 5 metres threshold for linear habitats. Accordingly, the development does not qualify for the de minimis exemption, and a statutory biodiversity metric is required.

In the absence of such a metric, there is no mechanism before me to demonstrate that the proposal would achieve the mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain. The submitted ‘site plan biodiversity gains’ does not address this requirement. Accordingly, on the evidence before me, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the statutory framework for BNG. As such, it would undermine the legitimacy of the BNG framework put in place and run counter to the government’s approach set out in paragraph 187 of the Framework.

I have had regard to the economic, social, and environmental benefits of the proposal, as outlined by the appellant, particularly as the development would add one dwelling to the housing stock in a sustainable location that has access to local services and facilities. However, given the small scale of the development, these benefits are limited and, in any event, they do not outweigh the harm identified above.

In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.