Appeal 6002342

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s second refusal reason refers to the absence of mitigation in relation to the effects of the proposed development upon the New Forest Special Area of Conservation, New Forest Special Protection Area and the New Forest Ramsar site. However, the appeal submissions indicate the site is not in fact located within the Zone of Influence of the European sites, as such, the Council did not pursue this refusal reason.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No.383), a detached single storey dwelling, and its garden. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, interspersed with occasional commercial uses, and includes single storey and two storey detached, semi-detached and flatted development of various styles and ages. Despite the variation in height and design of the dwellings in the immediate area, some of which sit on plots which deviate in terms of shape and size to No. 383, the dwellings along this section of [address] are orientated to front the highway and generally have a presence within the streetscape. [name].383, they are set back a similar distance from the front boundaries, with gardens and parking areas between them and the road and generous, spacious gardens to the rear. This creates a pleasant sense of consistency, which in turn makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal proposal includes the demolition of the existing outbuildings and the construction of a single storey one bedroom dwelling on land to the rear of No.383. Access to the new dwelling is proposed via a shared turning and parking area to the side of the existing dwelling.

The introduction of a new dwelling within the existing rear garden to No. 383 would significantly diminish the extent of the existing plot. Notwithstanding the extent of the plot coverage, the resulting overall plot sizes of both the proposed and existing dwellings, alongside the separation distance between the dwelling and the rear boundary of the site, would be in marked contrast with the prevailing pattern of development along [address]. The proposal would also introduce a built form of a considerable scale within the rear garden of the property, which, like those of the other neighbouring properties, is largely free from development, aside from ancillary outbuildings of a domestic scale. Notwithstanding the single storey nature of the proposed dwelling, together with the provision of soft landscaping, which may minimise any effects on the streetscene, the proposal would nonetheless be an anomalous feature which would erode the established character of the area.

Moreover, the new dwelling would be positioned directly behind No. 383, the front elevation of which would face the rear of the existing dwelling. Despite the presence of a garden to the rear of the new dwelling and parking to the front, which would not be untypical for the area, the notable absence of a street frontage would be at odds with the form and layout of the existing development in the immediate locality.

The site is located within a sustainable transport corridor, where housing densities should optimise the potential of a site, as set out in Part 3 of Policy PP2 of the Poole Local Plan, adopted November 2018 (PLP). While the overall density of the appeal site would fall below the minimum indicative density of 50 dwellings per hectare, Policy PP2 is also clear that housing densities will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Furthermore, even if the proposed dwelling would have a similar footprint to the side extension to No. 383 for which planning permission has been granted, the nature of this development and subsequent effects in terms of the character and appearance of the area are inherently different, and thus not akin to the appeal scheme.

My attention has been drawn by the appellant to other sites in the area for which planning permission has been granted for development which is said to be similar to the appeal proposal. While these are broadly within the same area, the sites in this case are located in different roads to the appeal site and therefore have different site characteristics and contexts to the appeal site, thereby the circumstances have not been shown to be directly comparable. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. In that regard it would fail to accord with the aims of Policies PP27 and PP28 of the PLP, which among other things, seek development of a good standard of design which reflects or enhances local patterns of development and preserves or enhances the area’s residential character.

The proposed dwelling would be served by a modest area of enclosed rear garden space, the rear boundary of which would be coterminous with the boundary to the rear garden of [address] (No.3), which would be a short distance from the proposed dwelling and its garden. The Council contend that the use of the outdoor amenity space associated with the proposed dwelling, which it is suggested would be likely to be used more intensively than at present, would result in increased noise and disturbance which would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.3.

However, having regard to the scale of the proposed development, for a single one bedroom property, there is no substantive evidence that either the type or level of activity likely to be undertaken in the outdoor space associated with the new dwelling, would be harmful when compared to that which could take place currently in the existing garden or neighbouring gardens. Thus, despite its proximity to No.3, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the proposed amenity space to serve the dwelling would introduce a level of noise and disturbance that would be unacceptable.

As such, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.3, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. Accordingly, it would not conflict with the aims of Policy PP27 of the PLP, which require development to be of a good standard of design and to avoid harmful impacts upon amenity.

The proposal would give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the area and would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole. There is no dispute that the Council cannot demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land, with a supply of 2.1 years as of April 2024. In such circumstances paragraph 11 d) ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that 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 support the aims of the Framework to boost the supply of homes in an area where there is a shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing sites and would contribute to the overall housing mix in the area. While the benefits attributed to a single unit would be modest and would not greatly improve total supply, given the current circumstances, any additional provision would be valuable.

It would also accord with policies in the Framework which recognise the important contribution small sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area, that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes, and encourage the efficient use of land. Future occupiers would also benefit from accessibility to local services and amenities, including public transport links, by means other than the private car. There would also be economic benefits during the construction phase and longer term and in terms of biodiversity enhancement. Although any benefits in these regards would be tempered due to the scale of the development.

The overall scale of the dwelling, which would be constructed using materials that would be sympathetic to the local context, would not differ significantly from some of the residential properties in the area. Furthermore, the Council has not raised an objection to the design of the dwelling, which from my observations on site, would add to the eclectic mix of dwellings in the vicinity. In addition, the proposal may be compliant with various other provisions of the development plan, including energy efficient design and parking provision. However, these are normal expectations of new development and therefore of neutral weight.

Moreover, the proposal would not give rise to harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of privacy or outlook, and the amount of outdoor amenity space is considered to be appropriate to serve both the existing and proposed dwellings. However, this represents an absence of harm in relation to these matters rather than a positive benefit.

Set against this, the support for the proposal in the Framework is countered by the importance of good design, including the need to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character. For the reasons set out, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and consequently, would not secure a well-designed place. In this case, the identified adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

I understand the appellant’s desire to live in the area with which they have a strong local connection, which would enable them to continue to contribute to the community, and the difficulties this presents given the present housing market. However, this does not mean that the proposed development is an acceptable solution given the harm it would cause.

A completed unilateral undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been provided to secure mitigation in respect of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and [name] and Ramsar site. [name] were minded to allow the appeal, I would need to be satisfied that the proposal would not have a significant effect on the integrity of these European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, including through the undertaking of an Appropriate Assessment. However, given my decision on the appeal overall, there would be no pathways to significant adverse effects on the sites arising from my decision.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. Material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, have not been shown to carry sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.