Appeal 6002226

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01257/FUL, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule below.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) whether the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupants.

The appeal site is in a predominantly residential area a short distance from the centre of Braintree. Sunnyside comprises two visually distinct sections, the southern part comprising rows of historic terraced houses, and the northern part comprising a series of semi detached properties set among more generous plots. Those semi-detached homes have been extended and altered in a variety of ways, but in many cases the original form of the semi-detached properties can be perceived, and this contributes positively to the character of the road. Nonetheless, this part of Sunnyside also includes two storey side extensions which infill the gaps between the properties to varying degrees. As a consequence, this part of the road displays an irregular pattern of gaps and separation distances.

While the proposal would infill much of the gap to the side of no.40, this would not be at odds with the character of the road. The retained gap of just under 1m, together with the distance of no.38 from the shared boundary, would successfully retain the appreciation of a visual break between the properties. The combination of the lowered ridgeline and very modest set back of the proposed front elevation would enable the form of the original property to remain apparent.

The proposed front elevation would include windows of a different scale and proportion to no.40. [name] note these, and the position of the proposed door, would be similar to the front of no.34A nearby. I do not consider these create an unduly cramped elevation, nor would the elevation be incongruous within this setting, given the proximity of no.34 and the variations in the design of extensions within the street.

For the reasons given in combination, the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its effects on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would comply with policies SP7, LPP1, LPP35 and LPP52 of the Braintree Local Plan 2013- 2033 (the BLP) which require, among other things, high standards of design and consideration of existing character.

Policy LPP52 of the BLP relates to layout and design of development and includes that residential development shall provide a high standard of accommodation and amenity for all prospective occupants. The development plan policy does not specifically refer to the [name] (NDSS).

While the appellant asserts the proposal is intended as a three person house, the floorplans clearly show each of the bedrooms would be capable of accommodating two people. It is therefore appropriate that the proposal be considered a two bedroom/ four person house. The proposed house would therefore fall short of the NDSS by approximately 5sqm, using the appellant’s calculations. Despite this, however, in considering the internal accommodation as a whole, it would comprise a reasonable layout with open plan living spaces on the ground floor and aspect to the front and rear. In considering the unit as a whole, I am satisfied that the internal floor area would not be unduly cramped and would provide a high standard of accommodation for future occupants.

Turning to the garden area, Policy LPP52(r) requires development to have regard to the outdoor amenity space standards in the [name] (EDG). Based on the information before me, the EDG sets out a garden area of 50sqm for two bedroom houses, giving the reason that this is the most common requirement among different authorities. As part of the appeal the appellant has provided a dimensioned plan which shows the resultant garden would be 49sqm. The shortfall below the EDG standard would therefore be minimal. When considered as a whole the garden would be an appropriate quality offering scope for both patio and soft landscaped areas, with good levels of privacy comparable to the gardens of other nearby properties, appropriate to this town centre location.

In conclusion on this main issue, I find the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers. Therefore, while the proposal would not comply with Policy LPP52(r) and the EDG, I give this conflict little weight, given the size of the shortfall together with the attributes of the proposed garden area here and as the proposal would comply with the policy where it requires a high standard of amenity. The proposal would comply with policies LPP1 and LPP35, insofar as they relate to appropriate standards of accommodation and amenity space.

The Blackwater Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site and Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) are close to the appeal site. The SPA and SAC are designated for their internationally important habitats including mudflats, saltmarshes and shingle beaches which support internationally important populations of overwintering birds. Evidence suggests that recreational pressures from visitors to those areas are having adverse effects on those habitats. Given the proximity of the appeal site to those areas, a likely significant effect on those qualifying features, arising from the proposal, either alone or in combination, cannot be ruled out.

The proposal would introduce new permanent residents to the area, who may use the habitats sites for recreational purposes and compromise the conservation objectives of the qualifying features and lead to adverse effects on the integrity of the sites. The Council have a strategic approach to mitigation in the form of the [name] disturbance Avoidance and [name] (RAMS), as set out in its RAMS Supplementary Planning Document of 2020. This sets out measures to mitigate against the increased pressure associated with new residential development and how it will be funded. I have no strong reason to doubt that a contribution to those measures would be effective in mitigating for the effects of the appeal scheme.

The Council have provided details of a payment already made by the appellant of £279.45 alongside confirmation that this is for the purpose of the RAMS. Overall, I have no strong reason to doubt that the contribution would be spent for its intended purpose. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would not present adverse effects on the integrity of the habitats sites.

The Council have suggested conditions which should be imposed if the appeal were allowed, and I have considered these in light of the relevant tests for conditions. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to list the approved drawings to provide certainty. For visual reasons, external materials and finishes are conditioned and include the hard surface of the parking areas to prevent a loose surface to maintain highway safety. To meet the policy requirement, details of water efficiency are also necessary.

While noting the extent of the rear projection proposed and the relationship to the neighbouring properties, I do not consider this amounts to clear justification for the removal of permitted development rights here or why the property should be subject to more strict controls than those which surround it. Matters relating to the details of the crossover do not meet the test of necessity for the purposes of the planning permission, since this would be dealt with separately and is outside the scope of the appeal site. Given the site’s proximity to the town centre and public transport, it is not apparent that additional measures to encourage those would be necessary here. Conditions have been recommended relating to biodiversity net gain, and I understand those to relate to the statutory requirement, rather than a development plan requirement. As such it is not necessary to impose those here, given the need to maintain distinction between the separate provisions.

For the reasons given, the proposal would comply with the development plan when read as a whole and the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 01, 02, 03, 04, 05A, 06, 07, 08.

No development shall commence above the damp proof course of the new house until details of facing materials and external finishes and including the hard surface of the driveway, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details.

The development shall not be occupied until details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority to demonstrate how the new building achieves the Building Regulations optional requirement for water efficiency of 110 litres per person per day. The development shall be maintained in accordance with those details. End of Schedule