Appeal 6002277

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the development description given in the appeal form in the banner heading above as it better describes the nature of the proposal subject to this appeal.

The Council’s third and fourth reasons for refusal refer to the absence of either bespoke mitigation strategies or financial contributions towards the Council’s scheme to mitigate any likely significant effect on the integrity of designated [name] as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). The appellant accepts a legal agreement is necessary to secure financial contributions and confirms their willingness to enter into such an agreement. However, no finalised agreement is before me. I shall return to this matter later in this decision.

A self-build statement has been submitted by the appellant as part of the appeal. This information does not involve a substantial difference or fundamental change. Due to the nature of the information and that the Council has had the opportunity to review the information, I am satisfied that taking it into account would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. As such I have accepted the statement.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of the occupiers of The Limes, with particular reference to privacy; and • whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular reference to privacy.

[site address] contains a mixture of bungalows, some with dormers, and 2-storey dwellings of varying styles and ages, which create a strong presence in the street scene. Their scale and modest setbacks result in a degree of harmony. I saw 2 narrow access tracks that led to houses that did not have a frontage to [site address] and had the appearance of being ‘tucked away’. Their size reflected those found elsewhere on the street and they appeared to sit comfortably within their respective plots.

Terraced and semi-detached cottages are prominent at the junction of [site address] and [address]. Their configuration is interesting within the locality as they have shallow rear yards and long front gardens, many of which contain outbuildings and provide off-street parking. Whilst widths and depths differ, there is an overall sense of spaciousness to the individual plots within the locality.

The appeal site is currently a detached double garage with a room in the roof space located to the bottom half of the rear garden of The Limes, which faces [site address] . The proposal would increase the height of the eaves and the ridge, with an open plan living area to the ground floor and a bedroom to the roof space. In addition to new and altered openings, a modest porch extension to the ground floor would be erected.

Whilst the proposed development would enlarge the existing building, it would be noticeably smaller than the other houses in the locality. Moreover, the extent of the plot with its restricted garden arrangement wrapping around the building would appear incongruous in its surroundings. The visual impact of its occupation as a self-contained dwelling, including boundary treatment and parking space, rather than an outbuilding associated with The Limes would be limited from [address] due to its ‘tucked away’ location down a narrow access track. However, it would be visible by the 2 adjacent houses accessed off the same track as well as adjoining properties on [site address] and [address]. Consequently, the proposed small standalone dwelling in a constrained plot, would give a cramped appearance that would be at odds within its context of larger properties set within more generous plots.

Reference has been made by the appellant that the proposal aligns with the surrounding pattern of infill and back land development that characterises parts of Stonehouse, and such conversions are commonplace within similar residential environments. However, no specific developments have been brought to my attention and therefore I cannot draw any direct comparison with the proposal that would weigh in its favour. I have therefore considered the appeal before me on its individual merits.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policy HC1(1), CP14(5) and ES12 of the Stroud District Local Plan (November 2015) (SDLP). Together these policies seek, amongst other things, well designed residential development that are of a scale, density, layout and design, and compatible with the character and appearance of the part of the settlement in which it would be located. It would also be contrary to the Policy ENV7 of the Stonehouse Neighbourhood Plan (October 2017) (SNP), which support development proposals that are of a high-quality design and respect the setting and the character of the area.

The relevant reason for refusal refers to SNP Policy ENV8. However, as this relates to the provision of private outdoor amenity space, this policy is not directly relevant to this main issue.

I saw from the existing dormer that it has a direct view of the rear elevation and private garden to The Limes. The proposed dormer would be at a slightly higher position in the south facing roof slope of the extended building. Although the garage is located at a lower level and a high timber fence is indicated along the new boundary between the properties, the proposed bedroom would have direct views within very close proximity into The Limes’ retained rear private garden and towards windows serving habitable rooms on its rear elevation. The separation distance between these facing windows would fall significantly short of the standard given in the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance (November 2000) ([name]).

Whilst the current situation allows for overlooking from the existing dormer window, it is undertaken in a manner that is directly linked with the occupation of The Limes, such as being used as an office or gym. This is materially different to the occupation of the proposed independent dwelling that is not associated with The Limes. In such circumstances, where proposals adjoin existing housing, it is reasonable to apply the Council’s standards to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of those existing dwellings. [name] is currently in the control of the appellant, the proposed development before me, including its description and submissions, has been made on the basis of a self-contained dwelling that would not be tied to The Limes. I therefore offer this fallback position limited weight.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of The Limes, with particular reference to privacy. This would be contrary to SDLP Policy ES3(1) and the [name], which resist developments that would be likely to, or result in an unacceptable, amongst other things, loss of privacy.

The relevant reason for refusal refers to [name] ENV7 and ENV8. However, as these relate to the provision of high-quality design and private amenity space in new residential development, and do not specifically relate to protecting the living conditions of occupiers of existing neighbouring properties, these policies are not directly relevant to this main issue.

Whilst the proposed dwelling’s ground floor kitchen window would face the new boundary treatment, over a short intervening distance, there would be opportunities for direct intervisibility with the first floor windows to the rear elevation of The Limes. There would also be clear sight to the proposed dwelling’s bedroom dormer window from the ground and first floor windows to the rear of The Limes. As established above, this separation distance falls significantly short of the Council’s standard.

Therefore, the proposed development would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular reference to privacy. This would not accord with SDLP Policy ES3(1) and the [name].

The appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence (ZI), or [name] area (CC), for the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation ([name]) and the Severn Estuary Special SAC/Special Protection Area ([name]/SPA). These are [name] as defined in the Habitats Regulations.

The qualifying features of the [name] relate to both woodland and grassland habitats, Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests, and semi-natural dry grassland and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates. The SES SAC/SPA hosts internationally important populations of several species of waterbirds. The conservation objectives of these are to ensure that the integrity of the sites is maintained or restored as appropriate and ensure that the sites contribute to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its [name] and Species. One of the pathways of impact currently affecting the SAC/SPA is noted to be recreational pressure from people visiting the sites.

Mitigation has been developed for each SAC/SPA. These include Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace and [name] and Monitoring mitigations. They seek to meet the conservation objectives by reducing recreational pressure and would be funded by proportionate financial contributions from new residential development that fall within the ZI or CC.

It is common ground between the parties that a [name] would be required to secure the financial contributions to mitigate any likely significant effect of the development on the integrity of each SAC/SPA. Whilst the appellant has indicated their willingness to enter into such a legal agreement to secure these contributions, there is no such mechanism before me. Nevertheless, as I have found the appeal scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of these [name] or undertake [name].

The proposed development would make a positive contribution in the delivery of an energy efficient dwelling that would make efficient use of an existing building and land with good access to services, facilities, employment and public transport. There would also be associated social and economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwelling is occupied. Nevertheless, not all proposals within a defined settlement will be acceptable. Due to the limited scale of the proposal and thereby the limited scale of the benefits, I afford them moderate weight in the planning balance. However, these benefits are outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring property as well as future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

In the absence of a mechanism to secure the dwelling as self-build, I am unable to give weight to this factor.

The appellants suggest that the appeal building could be extended or altered under permitted development, but I have little evidence to support this claim. I am therefore unable to conclude that this offers a realistic or probable prospect and consequently, it does not represent a legitimate fallback position. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of what is proposed and its consequent effects.

A lack of harm, or policy compliance, in respect of internal space standards and garden sizes, provision of off-street parking and cycle storage, and highway safety would have a neutral effect which neither weigh for nor against the proposal.

The appellant refers to pre-application discussions with the Council. I am mindful that pre-application discussions are informal and not binding to any future decision the Council may make once a proposal has been subject to the formal planning process.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.