Appeal 6002208

This appeal is dismissed.

It is not for me comment on the potential success or otherwise of any enforcement action relating to the erection of the continuous fence along the rear boundary of the appeal site, nor the associated segregation of the appeal site from the wider plot to No [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ).

Although the matter of character and appearance was not a reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice, it has been raised by the Council in other documentation, and the appellant has addressed it in their appeal statement of case. I am therefore content that neither party would be prejudiced by me including it as a main issue.

The main issues are therefore:  the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring flats regarding the amount of useable outdoor space; and  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a narrow plot of land accessed off [address] that includes a garage and hardstanding and is the last plot of similar ancillary development along [address] before a row of frontage bungalows. No [site address] sits to the rear of the appeal site and is a semi-detached property, which has benefitted from significant rear extensions and has been converted into four one bedroomed flats1 (the flat approval). The bungalow adjacent to the appeal site was granted planning approval2 (the bungalow approval) fairly recently.

Policy 69 of the [site address] District Local Plan Review (1994) (the LP) sets out broad principles for the general design and layout of development. LP Policy 70 provides more detail and point (ix) states that in the case of flats, it will normally be appropriate to provide communally shared amenity space, although ground floor flats may benefit from private space adjacent to the dwelling. [name]. 1: Design and Layout of [name] (1998) (the SPG) provides supplementary planning guidance to support the implementation of LP Policy 70. With specific reference to the provision of communally shared amenity space to flats, the SPG advises that 20sq.m be provided for the first bedroom of each flat and 10sq.m for additional bedrooms. The four flats at No [site address] should therefore preferably provide 80sq.m of useful outdoor space.

It is noted that the site boundary for the flat approval included the appeal site. In addition, Condition 2 of the approval required the provision of 4 vehicle parking spaces, including a garage, to be constructed and permanently marked out within the site. Permanent closure of the vehicular access onto [site address] was also required by Condition 3. The only alternative vehicular access point into the plot is via [address], which must therefore have been the location intended for the parking spaces and garage. A large portion of the appeal site sits between the garage/parking spaces off [address] and is therefore an integral part of the overall plot. Furthermore, the Council’s officer report for the flat approval confirmed the site would provide over 100sq.m of communal amenity space to serve the flats, which is a significant amount of land, and is broadly commensurate with that of the wider plot, including No [site address] and the appeal site.

It therefore follows that the whole of the plot to No [site address] , including the appeal site, was intended to serve the needs of the occupants of the flats, which forms the basis of my appeal deliberations in respect of this main issue. This is regardless of whether the appellant has since denied use of land within the appeal site, the presence of a nondescript line across the approved plans that may or may not have indicated the provision of a dividing fence and the lack of enforcement action taken by the Council.

The proposal would result in the significant loss of outdoor space for the occupants of the flats and would likely reduce it to an area significantly below that which the SPG considers acceptable for healthy living conditions. Furthermore, it is understandable that much of the accessible outdoor space to the side and rear of No [site address] has been set aside for use of the occupants of the rear ground floor flat to protect their privacy. However, in doing so this has left only a very small area to the side of No [site address] for use of the occupants of the remaining three flats. This area largely comprises hardstanding and would likely be primarily used for vehicle parking considering the proposed removal of the garage and parking off [address]. Thus, it is not considered to be useable outdoor space. 1 Council Ref 5/03/1365. 2 Council Ref 5/22/1904.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring flats regarding the amount of useable outdoor space. Consequently, it would be contrary to [name] 69 and 70.

The appeal site is significantly narrower than the plots of the bungalows on [address]. This is particularly noticeable in comparison to the adjacent bungalow, which occupies a plot of the same width as a pair of semi-detached dwellings rather than that of a single as is the case in this instance. Although the proposed bungalow would be smaller in scale, it would still appear cramped within its setting when viewed in the context of the other wider bungalow plots on [address] and the much smaller garage on the other side. This position is supported by the findings of the Inspector of the previously dismissed appeal3 that sought approval for a similar proposal on the same site.

Although the proposal would introduce some soft landscaping within the street scene to replace the unattractive hardstanding that currently exists, this would not outweigh the harm identified.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. Thus, it would be contrary to [name] 69 and 70, which, amongst other things, require all development to be of an adequately high standard of design, taking account of the scale and character of its surroundings.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS), and the proposal would therefore contribute positively to the Council’s supply of homes. However, in the absence of information regarding the level of shortfall in housing supply, the benefit of a single dwelling is considered limited in this case. Although the appellant asserts that the proposal would provide a self-build/custom-build house, the delivery of which would ordinarily be supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), there is no legal mechanism to secure its status as such, and a condition would not meet the test of enforceability.

It is acknowledged that this small site would make efficient use of land within a sustainable location. Nevertheless, in this case it would come at the expense of ensuring healthy living conditions are provided for the residents of the flats and it would not therefore be an effective use of the land.

There would also be some economic benefits, including through job creation and supply chain spend during the construction phase and through resident spend in the local economy once occupied. However, these benefits are limited given that the scheme is only for a single one-bedroomed dwelling.

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with [name] 69 and 70 regarding the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring flats and the character and appearance of the site and the 3 [name]/B1930/A/12/2184727. surrounding area. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

However, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS and in such circumstances, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. The balance at paragraph 11 d) ii) of the Framework applies in this case, which states that planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies, including those directing development to sustainable locations and making efficient use of land.

[name] have identified benefits of the proposed development relating to housing supply within a sustainable location, making efficient use of land and its contribution towards the local economy and job creation, for the reasons set out above these attract only limited weight overall. On the contrary, I have found that the proposal would result in an unacceptable amount of useable outdoor space for the occupants of the neighbouring flats, to the detriment of their health and well-being, and that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. Collectively, these considerations weigh significantly against the proposal.

Consequently, the identified harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as articulated at paragraph 11 d) of the Framework.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Thus, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.