Appeal 6002205

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, having regard to outlook; • weather the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to privacy, outlook, living space, parking provision and waste storage; • whether the proposal would provide adequate safety for future occupiers in relation to flood risk, particularly for the ground floor flat; • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; • whether the development would achieve nutrient neutrality, or otherwise secure appropriate mitigation for increased nutrient discharge affecting European designated sites; and • whether adequate mitigation is secured to address recreational disturbance impacts on the Solent Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

[address] forms part of a planned suburban estate where the layout, spacing and massing of buildings contribute to a coherent and recognisable character. Although there is some variation in architectural detailing and roof form, the estate exhibits a broadly consistent pattern. Dwellings are generally set back from the street, two-storey elements are positioned to maintain a sense of openness and the relationship between buildings and the public realm is moderated by front gardens, driveways and landscaped areas. These features collectively create a rhythm and spaciousness that define the character of the area.

The proposed first floor extension to the annexe would introduce a two-storey form in a position unusually close to the pavement. Its siting would significantly reduce the perceived width of the street at this point and would interrupt the established pattern of spacing between built form and the public realm. The elevation facing the street would be largely blank, and the combination of height, proximity and limited articulation would give the extension a visually abrupt and imposing presence. This would contrast sharply with the more graduated and softened transitions between buildings and the street that characterise the estate.

The proposed two-storey rear extension, although less visible from public vantage points, would add considerable mass to the rear of the property. Its flat-roofed form and substantial depth would create a bulky addition that would not reflect the proportions or roof profiles typical of surrounding dwellings. The extension would read as a large, box-like structure that would appear incongruous in its context.

Taken together, the extensions would materially alter the scale and massing of the host property in a way that would erode the openness and visual balance that contribute to the character of the area. The proposal would therefore cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the locality.

Although reference has been made to other extensions within the estate, the presence of development elsewhere does not alter the site-specific effects of the proposal. The particular siting, massing and relationship of the extensions to the street and neighbouring property are materially different from the examples cited, and it is these specific effects that give rise to the harm identified.

Additionally, while part of the structure already exists, the planning judgement turns on the effects of the development as proposed. The additional built form would materially alter the scale and massing of the building and its relationship with the street and neighbouring property, and it is these changes that give rise to the identified harm.

For these reasons, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan (2012) (PP), insofar as it requires development to respect, reinforce and not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, ensuring proposals are well-designed, appropriately scaled and visually integrated with their context.

The relationship between the appeal site and [address] is particularly sensitive due to the close proximity of the shared boundary. The proposed two-storey rear extension would be positioned very near to this boundary and would rise to a height that substantially exceeds the existing built form at this point.

From the neighbouring garden and rear-facing rooms, the extension would be perceived as a tall, unrelieved wall of development. Its height and depth, combined with its minimal set-back, would create a pronounced sense of enclosure. The extension would occupy a significant portion of the neighbour’s immediate outlook, replacing open sky and garden views with a dominant built form. This would materially diminish the quality of the neighbouring occupiers’ living environment.

Although the orientation of the properties limits the potential for overshadowing, the visual impact of the extension would nonetheless be substantial. The scale and proximity of the structure would be such that it would be experienced as an overbearing presence, particularly when viewed from ground floor rooms and the most frequently used parts of the garden.

For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring property, having regard to outlook. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy PCS23 of the PP, insofar as it requires that development must safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The ground floor flat would have principal habitable rooms facing directly onto the shared driveway on one side and towards a neighbouring garage at very close range on the other. This arrangement would provide limited outlook, dominated by hard surfaces and nearby structures. The proximity of vehicles and pedestrians to the windows would result in a lack of privacy and a sense of exposure.

The first floor flat would benefit from a more open outlook, but the absence of any private outdoor space would reduce the overall quality of accommodation, particularly for a two-bedroom dwelling likely to be occupied by more than one person.

While the internal floor areas would meet national space standards, the usability of the ground floor accommodation would be compromised by the external constraints of the site. The need to pass through a bedroom to access the garden of the ground floor flat would reduce the functionality of the layout and limit the practical enjoyment of outdoor space.

The plans indicate three allocated parking spaces, one for each dwelling. Given the arrangement of the parking spaces, occupiers of the other dwellings could need to walk past the windows of the ground floor flat when accessing their vehicles, and this has the potential to reduce the level of privacy experienced by future occupiers of the ground floor unit.

The proximity of pedestrian movements associated with the use of the forecourt to the principal habitable rooms of the ground floor flat would diminish the quality of the living environment. The relationship between the parking area and the accommodation is therefore unsatisfactory.

Three separate dwellings would require a substantial number of bins for refuse, recycling, food waste and potentially garden waste. A bin store is shown on the submitted plans, integrated into the ground floor of the building and positioned adjacent to the pavement. This provides a dedicated location for waste that is conveniently accessed and does not conflict with the forecourt parking area.

However, the plans do not clearly demonstrate that the store is of sufficient size to accommodate all of the waste and recycling containers required for three dwellings. In the absence of clear evidence that the necessary bins could be stored in an orderly and functional manner, I cannot be satisfied that the waste-storage arrangements would provide an acceptable standard of convenience for future occupiers.

For these reasons, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to privacy, outlook, living space and the practical arrangements for parking and waste storage. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy PCS23 of the PP, insofar as it requires that development must provide high-quality living conditions for future residents.

The site lies within [name] 3, an area of high flood risk. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires development in such locations to be supported by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) demonstrating that the development would be safe for its lifetime, including provision for safe access and egress. [name] or evacuation plan has been submitted.

The proposal would introduce a self-contained ground floor dwelling. While the existing building already contains ground floor accommodation, the absence of an FRA means there is no assessment of the specific risks to future occupiers, the depth or rate of potential flooding, or the measures necessary to ensure resilience and safe evacuation. The limited mitigation measures described are not supported by technical evidence and do not sufficiently address safe access or egress.

In the absence of the required information, it has not been demonstrated that the development would be safe for future occupiers. The proposal therefore conflicts with national policy, which requires a precautionary approach where flood-risk information is incomplete.

For these reasons, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would provide adequate safety for future occupiers in relation to flood risk, particularly for the ground floor flat. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy PCS12 of the PP, which requires that development is safe from flooding for its lifetime and complies with site-specific FRA requirements.

The residential estate is characterised by low vehicle speeds, good visibility and a relatively simple road layout. The surrounding streets are lightly trafficked and function primarily as access roads serving local residents. In this context, vehicle movements associated with two additional dwellings would be modest and well within the capacity of the local network.

The forecourt at the front of the property is of sufficient size to accommodate a few vehicles. Although manoeuvring space is somewhat constrained, the evidence before me indicates that vehicles can enter, park and exit the forecourt safely. The arrangement would not require vehicles to reverse onto a road that is busy or has fast-moving traffic.

In addition to the on-site provision, the surrounding streets offer a good supply of on-street parking opportunities. These are located on sections of road with adequate width and visibility, allowing vehicles to park without obstructing traffic flow or compromising pedestrian safety. The estate layout means that overspill parking can be safely accommodated without creating pinch points or forcing vehicles into hazardous manoeuvres.

While the parking arrangements may be inconvenient for future occupiers in terms of day-to-day living conditions, inconvenience does not equate to a highway safety hazard. The combination of on-site capacity and the availability of safe on-street parking means that the proposal would not materially increase the risk of conflict between vehicles, nor would it impede pedestrian movement or visibility.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not have a materially harmful effect on highway safety. Consequently, it complies with the Framework, insofar as it seeks to ensure safe and suitable access to sites for all users and the prevention of unacceptable impacts on highway safety.

The site lies within the zone of influence of the [name], which are designated European sites of international importance for their bird populations and associated habitats. Residential development within this area gives rise to recognised pathways of impact, including increased recreational pressure on sensitive coastal habitats and additional nutrient loading arising from wastewater generated by new dwellings.

Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), where a proposal is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European site, the competent authority must consider whether it is likely to have a significant effect on that site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. If such an effect cannot be ruled out, mitigation must be secured before planning permission is granted.

In this case, the development would result in a net increase in residential units and would therefore ordinarily require mitigation for both recreational disturbance and nutrient loading. No planning obligation or other mechanism has been submitted to secure such mitigation, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it could be delivered.

However, Regulation 63(1) of the Habitats Regulations requires an Appropriate Assessment only where the competent authority is minded to give consent. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other substantive reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider these matters further or to reach any findings on the likely significant effects of the development or the adequacy of any potential mitigation.

The proposal would deliver two additional dwellings in an established residential area. The appellant highlights that the scheme would make a modest contribution to housing supply, broaden the mix of smaller units available locally and make more efficient use of previously developed land. These are recognised benefits, and they attract weight in favour of the development. Even in the absence of a shortfall in the Council’s five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the provision of additional homes remains a positive factor, albeit of limited scale. The construction phase would also generate short-term economic activity, and future occupiers would contribute to local spending and support nearby services. These benefits, taken together, carry limited weight due to the small scale of the proposal.

The benefits must be considered in the context of the harm identified. It has been established that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, and it would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the development. In addition, the absence of a site-specific FRA means the development has not demonstrated that it would be safe for its lifetime in an area of high flood risk, contrary to national policy. The harms identified represent clear conflicts with the development plan’s core objectives relating to design quality, residential amenity and flood risk. The combined weight of these harms is therefore substantial.

Accordingly, the benefits of the development are insufficient to outweigh the identified harms and conflicts with the development plan policies. As such, the material considerations advanced in support of the proposal do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.