Appeal 6002416

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: i. the effect the proposed dwelling would have on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings within the Swindon Town Gardens Conservation Area (CA) and with respect the setting of [address], and ii. the degree to which the proposed development would affect the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings at Nos 1 and [address], with respect to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site occupies a strip of land within the very south western edge of the Swindon Town Gardens CA. It is not specifically referenced in the [name], which focusses mainly on the special qualities of the mature and relatively low-density residential built development to the north and east of the appeal site, with its sense of enclosure and ordered suburban form.

Immediately west of the CA boundary, the residential development is relatively modern and of higher density, albeit the entire length of [address] exhibits a generally pleasant, open, well-vegetated, suburban character.

The Appellant points out that the appeal land is functionally separate from the CA and more related to the later development to the west. That may be true but, in my view, it is more significant that the site, together with the adjacent bridleway from [address] south to the Swindon Green Trail, forms an open green edge to the CA. This appropriately separates the open-textured built development within the CA from the more closely spaced dwellings outside it.

I consider that the site thus contributes positively to the character and appearance of the Swindon Town Garden CA, even though it does not gain specific recognition in the [name] and despite its current overgrown condition.

I recognise that the appeal proposal includes the retention of the overgrown character of the southern part of the site. However, the proposed dwelling would be clearly visible not only from [address] to the north but from the Swindon Green Trail to the south. It appears to me that to insert the proposed domestic dwelling, with its confined gravel driveway and landscaped garden, into this area beyond the extent of the established built development of the CA, would deplete the positive contribution the site makes to the CA as a whole.

The development would accordingly be detrimental to the character and appearance of the CA which, as a result, would not be preserved, as required by planning law, and would contravene the protective provisions of Policy EN10 of the adopted Swindon Borough Local Plan (SBLP) with respect to heritage assets .

In the terminology of national planning policy, the development would cause a degree of less than substantial harm to the CA as a designated heritage asset. This carries significant planning weight and must be offset by public benefit for the appeal to succeed.

With respect to [address], however, I agree with the heritage assessment submitted by the Appellant ,in that it finds no harm to the setting or significance of the [address]. The appeal site lies outside the historic curtilage of the Manor and has no functional or historical association with it beyond former shared ownership. The degree of separation, mature boundary planting, and the inward-looking garden setting are such that the proposed dwelling would not intrude upon key views of the Listed Building or alter the way in which it is experienced or understood.

Nevertheless, overall, in terms of character and appearance, the proposal is contrary to Policy SD1 of the SBLP regarding sustainable development, high quality design and respect for the historic environment, and also in conflict with Policy DE1, requiring high quality design for new development, as assessed against local context, development character, layout, form and function.

The proposed house would stand on lower ground than No [address] to its west and [address] at No 3, to its east, and it would be separated from No 1 by the requisite 12m advised by the adopted [name]. There would be no significant windows facing either property and the raised rear terrace could be screened to avoid overlooking towards neighbouring gardens. Accordingly, I do not consider that the proposed development would cause any unacceptable loss of privacy at either neighbouring dwelling.

However, the existing pleasant outlook from the several east-facing ground and first floor side windows of No 1 would be largely blocked by the essentially plain side walls of the new dwelling. Fundamentally, there is no entitlement to a view but, in this case, I consider that the development would harm unacceptably the outlook from No [address], despite the intervening distance and difference in ground levels.

The proposed dwelling would be nearer to [address], at about 9m, but better separated by elevation, retaining walls and the width of the intervening bridleway. As a result, I do not consider that the proposed dwelling would harm the outlook from [address] to the same degree as from No [address].

Overall though, I consider that the proposed development would affect adversely the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties to a degree that warrants objection with respect to the requirement of in Policy DE1 of the SBLP that development should be designed to a high standard, including the avoidance of such harm.

In connection with biodiversity, the Council refers to a submitted [name] (BNG) Assessment but states that further details would be required. It is suggested without prejudice that a planning condition could be imposed to require the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan to secure the requisite BNG, should the development proceed. The Appellant provides a completed planning obligation by way of a [name] (UU) to the same purpose. I have not seen comments from the Council concerning the adequacy of the UU but, in view of my findings elsewhere, I take no further action on this matter.

I have reviewed the many comments from residents, elected councillors and other third parties both for and against the proposed development. None raise further issues to deflect me from my conclusions based on the main issues considered above.

If permitted, the proposed development would provide a modern, energy-efficient home on a sustainably located urban site in the context of a shortfall in planned housing.

The tilted balance of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged, due to the lack of a five-year Borough housing land supply. This requires approval to be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole. That includes having particular regard to policies to make effective use of land and secure well-designed places.

I have identified significant adverse impact in terms of the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surroundings within the Swindon Town Gardens CA and on residential amenity, with reference to the development plan policies cited above. Those policies are, in themselves, consistent with national policy, which requires the identified less than substantial harm to the CA to be outweighed by public benefits.

In my overall judgement, in terms of the tilted balance, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the public benefit it would bring. I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.