Appeal 6002470

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: i) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the Basingstoke Town Conservation Area (BTCA) and the setting to [name] and [address] which are both [name] listed; ii) Whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for the occupiers of proposed flats 1 & 2 with regard to outlook, privacy and light. iii) whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for the occupiers of all of the proposed flats with regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is located in an accessible Town Centre location where, in principle, planning policies support new housing and higher density developments. It is an area where housing developments can support the vitality and viability of the town centre and help meet current housing needs on a previously developed site. These things are actively supported in policies EM10 1. a) b) d) f) of the Basingstoke and Dean Local Plan 2011- 2029 (BLP), and section 11 and paragraphs 75, 90, 115, 128, 135 e) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework). Proposals also need to be assessed against relevant economic, social and environmental policies.

The appeal site is situated within the historic core of the BTCA, where there are numerous buildings that are either statutorily listed or identified in the Basingstoke Town Conservation Area Appraisal BTCAA as being notable.

As stated in the BTCAA, the historic core of the BTCA is noted for its medieval street pattern; narrow alleyways that provide links between the main street frontages and the former yards to the rear; along with the high number of statutory listed buildings. The transition from the busy street frontages through narrow, intimate passages to the open spaces of the former yards beyond are important elements of the morphology of the historic core. It also comments that plots are predominantly narrow; that there are some notable examples of deeper plots backing onto [name] from [address]; and that buildings are predominantly two or three storeys in height.

It was apparent from my site visit that these are all prevailing historic features within the historic core of the BTCA and that they make a strong contribution to its character, appearance, and significance. Having regard to this and the medieval history of the area, which is set out in the BTCAA, the appeal and adjacent plots do reflect an historic burgage plot form. However, irrespective of whether or not the appeal site is located within a row of Burgage plots, the area is noted for its medieval street pattern, deep narrow plots and narrow alleyways leading to former yards.

The appeal site occupies a prominent position close to the junction of [address], [name], and a public car park. It comprises a deep split level yard area, with the northern part sitting at a similar level to the adjacent street level and the rear part sitting at the same lower level as the ground floor of the building at No.25. Currently there is a bridge between the first floor rear exit to the building at No.25 and the raised part of the appeal site, which is described as a parking area. At the time of the appeal site visit the metal security gates to the site were open and a large pile of builder’s rubble had been deposited on part of the upper part of the site.

Although in its current condition the appeal site is unsightly, it is contained and largely screened from the street scene. There are however open views over the yard area towards the rear elevation of the building at [site address] , which is one of the older traditional buildings within the street scene. Whilst this building is relatively modest in form and height, it forms part of a continuous row of the buildings that front onto [address].

To the east and north the appeal site adjoins a flat roofed primarily two storey commercial building that is used for the nightclub, which is currently known as [name] and Club (DB&C). On its eastern elevation is a large flue and numerous fans/extractors, along with a metal first floor walkway and stairs that serve two first floor doors. Whilst the front elevation of the building which faces [address] is more articulated, the rear section is utilitarian in character and appearance and singularly unattractive. It has a negative impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, the local area, and this part of the BTCA.

To the south of the appeal site is an access that serves the appeal site and a parking area to the rear of the adjacent commercial building at [address]. Beyond this parking and access area is [name], which is a modern three storey part commercial/part flats development with flat and mansard roofs. This development, which include shop frontages, forms a deep extension to a modern commercial building that fronts onto [address].

Similarly, the large commercial/flats development to the north ([name]), comprises part of a large modern building that fronts onto both [address] and a modern pedestrianised commercial square. Both developments reinforce the commercial function of the town centre to which they are physically attached. They also reinforce the physical links between [address] and the car parks in [address]. These car parks are at ground level only and the trees and verges around their perimeter soften their appearance.

Some of the buildings around [name] are listed or described at notable in the BTCAA. The traditional buildings make a positive contribution to the historic significance of this part of the BTCA and complement the traditional buildings within [address] and [address]. [name] there are glimpses of the rear of various listed buildings in [address] including the [name] and [name].

Overall, the appeal site is in a mixed town centre area where some of the more recent developments have weakened the historic form of the immediate area. Despite this the contextual setting remains evident, and this includes the open yard space created by the appeal site and the views of the rear of the building at No.25.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LB&CA Act) requires that when assessing proposals for new development within a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. The LBCA Act similarly requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of listed buildings.

Collectively paragraphs 212 and 214 of the Framework, state that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to its conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial or less than substantial harm to its significance. Any harm to a heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification, whilst opportunities for new development in conservation areas should be sought. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

BLP Policy EM11 and Sections 4 and 7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Heritage Supplementary Planning Document 2019 (SPD) are consistent with this. Within conservation areas proposals should preserve important views and vistas and there should be no unjustified adverse impact on the setting of any heritage assets, or the ability to appreciate their significance.

Together and amongst other things BLP Policy EM10 1. c) e) 2. A) c) d) and paragraph 135 a) b) c) & d) of the Framework seek ensure that proposals are to a high standard of sustainable design. Development should be informed and respond sensitively to aspects of a conservation area which make a positive contribution to its character, appearance or special historic or architectural interest. Proposals should be sympathetic to local character and history and positively contribute to local distinctiveness, including the appearance and use of streets. Paragraph 131 of the Framework states that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

The proposed building would occupy a prominent position within the street scene, on a comparatively narrow plot of land that rises away from the building at No.25. Due to its detached form, narrow width, four storey height and vertical design detailing the proposed building would appear unduly narrow and out of context within the street scene. Its siting alongside the low, wide, and squat form of the DB&C building would accentuate its tall narrow appearance.

Due to its proximity and height, it would dominate the building at No.25 and the relationship between the two buildings would be cramped and awkward. For these reasons the proposed building would materially detract from and fail to respect the existing and historic built form. The proposed building would also have an enclosing impact on the open gap between [name] and [name] and would partially obscure the historic plots and built form of the east side of [address].

For these reasons the proposed building would materially detract from the street scene and dilute the historic hierarchy of this part of the BTCA, causing harm to the overall character, appearance, and significance of the BTCA.

Having regard to the narrow width and alignment of [address], the alignment of [address] and the screening provided by [name], I am not convinced that the proposed building would be visible in views to or from [name], [name], or [address]. Even if the top of proposed building could be glimpsed in views to or from [name] and [address], due to its backland position on the opposite side of [address] the proposed building would not have a noticeable impact on the settings to these listed buildings. However, by diluting the overall historic hierarchy of this part of the BTCA, the proposal would detract from the legibility of their wider setting.

I appreciate that there have been a considerable number of modern redevelopments and infill developments within and around the town centre, which have been assimilated into the historic street scene with varying degrees of success. However, rather than set a precedent they highlight the need for new developments to respect their settings and take full account of the character, appearance, and significance of heritage assets.

As a result of these factors the proposal would fail to preserve and would unacceptably detract from the character, appearance, and significance of the BTCA. Whilst the harm to the significance of the BTCA would be less than substantial, it nonetheless needs to be weighed against any public benefits that would arise from the proposed development.

The construction of the proposed development would result in temporary local employment, and the occupiers of the proposed flats would likely support town centre businesses and services. In addition, the proposal would provide six small homes in a sustainable location, as well as helping to meet the housing needs of the Borough. However, having regard to the modest size of the proposed development these benefits would fail both individually and collectively to outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposed development to the CGCA and the surrounding area.

I conclude that the first main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the street scene and the surrounding area and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the BTCA. Further, the less than substantial harm it would cause to the significance of the BTCA would not be outweighed by any public benefits. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with [name] EM10 & EM11, Section 16 of the Framework and Sections 4 and 7 of the SPD. Living conditions

BLP Policy EM10 b) c) seeks to ensure that new development provides a high quality of amenity for the occupants of new developments, having regard to overlooking, access to natural light, outlook, and amenity space in accordance with The Basingstoke and Deane Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD). Consistent with this Paragraph 135 f) of the Framework states that new developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area and deliver a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Collectively and amongst other things design principles RA3, RA5, RA6 and RA7 of the SPD advises on minimum back-to-back distances. Also, that new housing development should ensure that the privacy of neighbouring properties is protected and that a suitable and pleasant outlook and level of natural light for neighbouring properties is provided. The general text in section 10 clarifies that variations to the requirements set out in the design principles, may be permitted where justified. Regarding daylight and sunlight, it advises that shadowing of garden areas should be kept to a minimum.

Due to the proximity and height of the two and half storey building at No.25 and the side flank wall of the DB&C building, the outlook from the full height glazed windows and door to the kitchen/living area to flat 1 would be unduly enclosed and oppressive.

Whilst the upper half of the glazed windows and doors of the kitchen/living area to flat 2 would be elevated above the roof parapet of the DB&C building, they would similarly face towards the rear wall of the building at No.25. In addition, the balcony to the front of the kitchen/living area would be enclosed, which would further enclose the outlook from the kitchen living area and the proposed side facing bedroom window.

The sense of enclosure would be exacerbated by the level of overshadowing and associate restricted levels of daylight and sunlight caused by the proposed building, the building at No.25, [name], the wall on the southern side of the appeal site and the side wall of the adjacent night club building. In addition, the Kitchen/living area to flat two would be recessed behind an enclosed balcony and the bedroom window would be both orientated north and facing into the enclosed balcony. This would further restrict daylight and sunlight levels within flat 2.

Due to their proximity, the kitchen/living areas of proposed flats 1 & 2 and the balcony to flat 2 would be directly overlooked from the rear facing windows and door of the building at No.25. The council has confirmed that the lawful use of this building is Class E, which covers a range of uses that could generate continuous occupancy both during the daytime and early evenings.

For these reasons I find that the proposed development would provide unacceptably poor and unsatisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of flats 1 and 2 regarding outlook, privacy, daylight, and sunlight. This is not a matter that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions.

The same sense of enclosure, overshadowing and loss of privacy would be experienced in the rear communal garden, which would also be overlooked from the upper flat’s windows at [name]. As the flats also benefit from having balconies, in-itself this would not amount to a reason for dismissing this appeal. However, it does add to my concerns regarding the quality of the living conditions the proposed development would provide.

I conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would provide unacceptably poor living conditions for the occupiers of flats 1 & 2 relating to outlook, privacy, daylight ad sunlight. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with BLP Policy EM10 b) c) the SPD and paragraph 135 f) of the Framework.

The Noise Policy Statement for England (Department for Environment, Food and [name]) 2010 states that the broad aim for noise management has been to separate noise sources from sensitive noise receivers and to ‘minimise’ noise. It goes on to state that For the UK Government the goal of sustainable development is being pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative, and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities, and personal wellbeing.

Policy EM12 states that development that would result in unavoidable pollution will only be permitted where adequate measures to mitigate the pollution can be implemented. Paragraph 198 of the Framework states that decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking account of likely effects, including cumulative effects of pollution, and living conditions on health, or the wider impact that could arise from the development.

The DB&C is an established nightclub within the town centre. The council has stated that there are currently very few night clubs/music venues in the town centre. Also, that the proliferation of flats being introduced in the town centre will make it more difficult for licensed premises to operate without disturbing residents.

As stated above, the proposed building abuts the DB&C on two sides. In 2013 planning permission was granted to amend the opening hours of the DB&[name] approved extended hours are that the premises shall not open before 08.00 on any day of the week and shall not remain open after 02.30hours on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thusday or after 04.00 hours on Saturday, 04.30 hours on Sunday, 00.30 hours on Monday or after 04.30 hours the day after any Public Holidays.1

More recently, planning permission has been granted for the use of the first floor of the DB&C for a mix of uses including pool and shuffleboard area, games and TV area, bar, kitchen, karaoke rooms, DJ suite and stage. The uses can take place between the hours of 12.00 hours and Wednesdays and 12.00 hours and 01.00 hours Thursday to Sundays. Live music is restricted to 19:00- 22:00 Sundays to Wednesdays or 19:00 - 23:00 Thursdays - Saturdays with the exception of 1st 1 Planning permission :13/00829/[name] only where live music shall not be played beyond 00:30am.2 It is understood that this use has commenced.

Whilst these hours may not currently be operated in the DB&C, they could be in the future. As advised in paragraph 0093 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), this needs to be taken into consideration in assessing potential impacts from noise.

BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound’ (BS 4142) sets out guidance for where industrial or commercial noise is present or proposed and likely to impact a residential receptor. It provides a methodology for determining an initial estimate of significance through subtracting the measured background noise level from the specific sound level of the source corrected for any distinctive acoustic characteristics. Typically, the greater the difference, the greater the magnitude of the impact. A difference of around +10dB or more is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact.

In relation to noise the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that increasing noise exposure will at some point cause the ‘significant observed adverse effect’ level boundary to be crossed. Above this level the noise causes a material change in behaviour such as keeping windows closed for most of the time or avoiding certain activities during periods when the noise is present. If the exposure is predicted to be above this level the planning process should be used to avoid this effect occurring, for example through the choice of sites at the plan-making stage, or by use of appropriate mitigation such as by altering the design and layout. While such decisions must be made taking account of the economic and social benefit of the activity causing or affected by the noise, it is undesirable for such exposure to be caused.

The Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Dice Environmental in June 2024 (NIA) recorded that the excess rating over background sound level exceeds the BS4142 requirements by 14dB during the daytime and 26dB at night. I note that the assessment was undertaken with all plant operating, although plant associated with the commercial properties to the south would be unlikely to operate at south. However, I also note that the survey was undertaken in 2024 before the 2025 permission was granted for the adjacent premises.

Based upon the use of standard double glazing BS8322 recommends that a partial open window provides approximately 15dB attenuation. Even with this attenuation the NIA advises that the resultant internal noise level with a window partly open would be +11 during the day and +16 at night. To address this the NIA proposes mitigation measures which include a form of passive ventilation for the affected facades. This would enable the windows to remain shut. Subject to the mitigation measures there should be no adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed flats resulting from noise.

However, residents are likely to want to have their windows open, particularly during the summer months for ventilation and cooling. The council has referred to a recent appeal decision relating to the existing building at No.25 and a survey which supports this view. Although the survey was not large it is reasonable to assume that people would want the option to open their windows without concerns relating to excessive noise and associated disturbance. This could lead to 2 Planning permission :25/00519/FUL 3 [name]: 30-008-20190722 complaints and potentially constraints being placed on the existing commercial activities.

Paragraph 200 of the Framework which states that decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities. Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them resulting from development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development, the applicant should provide suitable mitigation.

As indicated in PPG paragraphs 005 and 006 4, Some types of noise will cause greater adverse effect at night as there is typically less background noise and people are trying to sleep. In the case of new residential development where mitigation for adverse internal effects could be completely removed by keeping windows closed most of the time, the effect this will have on living conditions is a factor that should be considered as well as the need for alternative ventilation. Some commercial developments including night clubs can have particular impacts. Their activities often peak in the evening and late at night, and noise can be generated by both within the premises and may be made by customers in the vicinity.

Concerning the balconies and external communal garden the NIA states that the size of the balconies negates the requirement for noise limits and points out that there is a public park within a seven minute walk of the appeal site.

Notwithstanding the size of the balconies, they are of sufficient size for sitting out. In dealing with the amenities of the proposed residents the appellants planning statement states that each flat is provided with a balcony, which provides outside space. In addition, the proposed landscape plan shows a shared garden space. It would be reasonable for the occupiers of the proposed flats to want to use the balconies and garden area for domestic recreational purposes, without being concerned or affected by noise and disturbance.

I appreciate the need for flexibility when dealing with outside space in urban areas. However, this adds to my concerns relating to the compromised living environment the proposed development would provide for the occupiers of the flats. As stated in [name]:006, where external amenity spaces are an intrinsic part of an overall design, the acoustic environment of those spaces should be considered so that they can be enjoyed as intended.

In reaching this view I note that other flats within the locality do not provide external amenity space. This is not a good reason for providing a poor environment for residents where space is provided and where the internal space is compromised by noise.

For these reasons whilst the proposed mitigation measures could be made the subject of planning conditions, this would fail to satisfactorily address the noise consequences should occupiers of the proposed flats open or wish to open their windows, or use the outside amenity spaces. 4 005 [name]: 30-005-20190722 & 006 4Reference ID: 30-006-20190722

I conclude on the third main issue that the occupiers of the proposed flats would experience unsatisfactory living conditions due to noise and associated disturbance. The proposal therefore conflicts with [name] EM10 b) and EM12 and paragraphs 135 f), 198 and 200 of the Framework.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the locality, fail to preserve the character and appearance of the BTCA and detract from its significance, contrary to various policies and advise set out in this decision. I give substantial weight to each of these concerns.

I also give substantial weight to the poor living environment that would result from the enclosed outlook, overlooking, loss of privacy and harm associated by noise and disturbance which would be experienced by the occupiers of the flats to various degrees, contrary to the policies and advice set out in this decision.

The council has confirmed that as at 1 April 2025 it had a 3.2 years supply of deliverable housing sites. The proposal would deliver 6 small flats and so would make a very modest contribution to the local housing supply. I give a moderate amount of weight to this factor.

I also give a moderate amount of weight to the accessible town centre location of the appeal site and the short-term economic benefits of the proposal. The occupiers of the proposed flats would support local businesses and services, although they could also raise concerns regarding noise and disturbance associated with the DB&[name] could have a negative impact on the viability of the DB&C and how the facility is used by local people. Accordingly, I give only a small amount of weight to the long-term economic benefits.

Finally, as stated above the Borough currently does not have a deliverable supply of sites to provide a minimum five-years supply of housing sites. Therefore, the development plan policies that are most important for determining the appeal are out-of-date and the tilted balance as set out in paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged. However, as stated in paragraph 11 d) i of the Framework, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 clarifies that such policies include those relating to designated heritage assets.

Accordingly, having regard to my conclusion on the second first main issue, the tilted balance set out in paragraph 11 of the Framework is not applicable to the

Even if the presumption under Paragraph 1 d)ii of the Framework did apply in this instance, taking the above factors into account the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the public and other benefits to outweigh the less than substantial harm the BTCA; the harm to the surrounding area; and the unsatisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the proposed flats. The proposal would therefore not represent a sustainable form of development when assessed against the Framework read as a whole. In these circumstances, there are no material considerations to justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.