Appeal 6002332

The appeal is dismissed.

The Secretary of State has considered the above appeal in accordance with Regulation 14(1) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and determined that the proposed development falls under Schedule 2, 10(b) Infrastructure projects – Urban development projects. The threshold criteria are not exceeded however the proposed development is located within a sensitive area – a zone of influence of the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site.

It has been determined that an Environmental Statement is not required for the proposed development.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: a) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and wider area; b) The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of Nos. 10 and [site address] , Bournemouth with particular regard to privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight; and c) Whether appropriate living conditions would be secured for the future occupiers of the proposed development.

The appeal site, comprising domestic garages, is a small, tight plot between the rear boundaries of [site address] and [address], fronting [address]. It sits within a residential area of two-storey detached houses on generous plots with long back-to-back rear gardens, which define the area’s prevailing character.

The proposed development reflects the surrounding house design in terms of the materials to be used and being a detached two-storey home in size and would include a double-storey front bay. However, it would introduce a single detached home on a compact plot fronting onto this section of [address] where no comparable houses exist, and would be perpendicular to the established, uniform rows of dwellings.

Although the Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan (adopted in 2002) (LP) does not provide minimum plot sizes, I do not agree that their absence would override the necessary visual assessment in the consideration of character and appearance. In this instance, the proposed development would appear at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area.

The small appeal site would result in a development which would appear cramped in relation to its immediate confines: a material difference, which would be a dominant, incongruous addition in the street scene particularly when viewed from along [address] and at the junctions with [address] and [address].

I conclude that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the local area. This would conflict with Policy 6.8 of the LP and Policies CS21 and CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] (adopted in 2012). These policies together seek to maintain and enhance the quality of the street scene, and contribute positively to the character and function of the wider area.

The proposed detached home would front directly onto the street and occupy the full width of the plot. It would offer a small, enclosed area to the rear for private amenity. Although single-bedroomed, this would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the outlook of future occupants by the constrained private space to be created given the hemmed in nature of the site and proximity to neighbouring boundaries.

Given the site’s tightly constrained nature, the bin storage area is proposed to be positioned immediately beside a front window, which forms part of the ground floor element of the double-storey bay. With no alternative space available to the front, sides or limited rear, this arrangement would result in an unacceptable outlook for future occupants of the proposed development.

Minimal, restricted space would exist between the proposed dwelling’s gable walls and adjacent boundaries with it undisputed that it would be below the minimum standard provided in the [name] for Residential Development (adopted 2008). Despite the appellant’s reference to the proposed separation distances to properties on [address] and [address], and the fact that obscure glazing could be secured by planning condition to address any overlooking from the first-floor landing and bathroom windows, the limited footprint would not mitigate the proposal’s overbearing effect. The two-storey blank gable facing the rear garden space of No. [site address] would not meet the minimum required separation distance and would materially harm the outlook from that property.

The appellant and Council agree that the proposal would not materially reduce daylight or sunlight to neighbouring properties during the mid-afternoon, however no substantive evidence has been provided to counter the identified unacceptable overshadowing of rear private amenity spaces— including the seating area at No.[address]—during the morning and late evening. Therefore, the proposed development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers along [address].

I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of future occupants of the proposed development and to No.’s 10 and [site address] , Bournemouth. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 6.8 of the LP and Policies CS21 and CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] insofar, as among other things, development proposals must respect and complement the character and amenity of neighbouring development and the wider area, demonstrate, through their scale, density, layout, siting, character and appearance, respond appropriately to the site and its surroundings, and secure a high standard of amenity for future occupants. The proposed development also conflicts with the good design principles of the Framework and the Residential Development Design Guide.

In this instance, the appeal site is within 5km of the European designated sites including [name] and Ramsar site, and is part of the [name], which covers the entire Bournemouth urban area. As the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons set out above, I do not need to give this any further consideration.

The main parties agree that the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (5YHLS). Where a 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework means that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, and that permission should be granted unless the circumstances in paragraph 11(d)(i) or (ii) apply. In this case paragraph 11 d)(i) is engaged: permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. In this case, paragraph d)(i) is not engaged.

With regard to paragraph 11 d)(ii), permission should be granted unless any 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 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and potential future occupants. This would conflict with the relevant policies outlined above. I afford these harms and conflicts significant weight individually and cumulatively. The Framework is clear that small sites can make an important contribution to housing delivery, therefore I attach moderate weight to the provision of one new home. I also acknowledge that the site is within a sustainable urban residential location and attribute moderate weight to this. However, the adverse impacts on character and appearance and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and future occupants, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these modest benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.