Appeal 6002369

The appeal is dismissed.

The information submitted with the appeal indicates that the use had commenced prior to the point at which the application was made, thus making the appeal development retrospective in nature. However, as ‘retrospective’ is not an act of development, I have dealt with the appeal as a proposal for the ‘change of use from annexe to self-contained dwelling’.

The appellant provided additional information1 with the appeal which seeks to demonstrate the views from windows at [address] toward the appeal site. This information does not seek to amend the scheme. It is supplemental information and, whilst not verified, I have taken it into account in my assessment of the main issue.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of its occupiers with particular regard to privacy.

The site is located to the rear of [address], a two storey semi-detached property within a wider residential area, and comprises a single storey building. The building was originally granted planning permission for use as an annexe to the main dwelling at No 5102, which itself is now a House in [name] (HMO). The new dwelling includes four glazed doors on the front elevation, serving the kitchen/dining room, which open onto the garden area for use by occupiers of the dwelling. 1 Computer generated images, one drawing titled ‘sheet no. P005 view from 510 windows’ and two untitled drawings. 2 Planning application ref. 04/00122/FUL

No 510 has three windows on the rear elevation at first floor level which are shown on the plans as serving two bedrooms. As confirmed by the appellant, the new dwelling is approximately 12m-12.4m from the ground floor rear elevation of No

Due to their elevated height and proximity to the appeal property, the windows would have direct views of the appeal property, particularly the kitchen/dining room and its garden area. This would have an adverse effect on living conditions for the occupants of the new dwelling.

I understand that there is no minimum distance set out in the development plan policies regarding separation between dwellings. Nevertheless, Policies DM3 and DM8 of the Development Management Document (2015) (DMD), do not support schemes that would lead to a harmful impact on the living conditions of future residents.

Mitigation is proposed for the new dwelling in the form of a close boarded fence with trellis above and the provision of climbing plants. These measures may limit the effect on privacy to some degree. However, due to the height and permeability of the trellis and planting, they would still allow views into the new dwelling and its garden area. I note that there is an intervening car parking space proposed between the garden area of No 510 and the garden area of the new dwelling. To provide this, the existing shed would be removed. This is a solid intervening structure whereas a parking space would be a less effective barrier for the purposes of mitigation. This would particularly be the case for the kitchen/dining room and garden area. I acknowledge that the bedroom window would be less impacted due to an oblique view and greater separation. Nonetheless, overall, I do not consider that the mitigation measures proposed would be sufficient to prevent an unacceptable loss of privacy to the new dwelling.

There is an existing relationship between the existing building on site, used as an annexe, and the dwelling at No 510. However, there is a material difference between occupation of the building as an annexe associated with the main dwelling and that between an independent dwelling unit and another, or in this case, the HMO.

In conclusion, the development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of its occupiers with particular regard to privacy. This conflicts with Policies KP2 and CP4 of the [name] (2007) (CS), Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the DMD and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which collectively seek, amongst other things, to resist proposals that have a detrimental impact on the living conditions and amenity of future residents.

The Council’s decision notice refers to the absence of appropriate mitigation to accord with the [name] and [name]. The appellant’s statement makes it clear that there is not a unilateral undertaking submitted with the appeal but that one could be provided if it is required. They have subsequently provided evidence that a payment has been made to the Council for the tariff. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I do not need to undertake an appropriate assessment in this case.

The appellant has drawn my attention to two other appeal decisions3 which are in different local authority areas and are different schemes to the one before me. In both cases the appointed Inspector applied judgement to issues of harm to living conditions versus supply of housing units. [name] have considered them carefully, I have also assessed the scheme before me on its individual merits. Neither of these cases individually or collectively would alter or outweigh the harm I have found in this case.

The Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing. This is not in dispute and as such paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged.

The scheme would deliver a single dwelling and would make efficient use of land in accordance with Policy CP8 of the CS. Further, it would reuse an existing structure and support local services in a well-connected urban area. However, I have found that the proposal would harm the living conditions of occupiers of the development in conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework, one of the key policies referenced in footnote 9 to which I must have particular regard. I attach significant weight to this and as such, the adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In conclusion, the scheme would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.