Appeal 6002472

The appeal is dismissed.

There is an appeal at 10 Sopers Lane1 (No.10), for development of a similar description, to which I have had regard in the determination of this appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian visibility.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No.4) and its garden. Properties along this part of [address], are orientated to front the highway. With the exception of the dwelling at [address] (No.2), they are set back a similar distance from the road, with gardens and/or parking between them and the road, with low boundary walls or hedges to the front boundaries. They have generous gardens which extend to the rear, which, despite the presence of modest ancillary outbuildings, are largely open. By virtue of the generous nature and length of the rear gardens, together with the absence of any significant built form, there is a strong sense of openness to the rear of the properties. This creates a pleasant sense of consistency to the layout of the development in the immediate area and in particular a strong sense of spaciousness to the rear of the dwellings. 1 6002858

The appeal proposal seeks to demolish the garage, outbuilding and sunroom to the rear of the existing bungalow and construct a pair of semi-detached bungalows within the rear garden. A shared parking/turning area to serve the existing and proposed bungalows, is proposed to the front of No.4.

The proposal would introduce a substantial built form into the generally open area to the rear of No.4. As a consequence of the overall height, scale and massing of the proposed development, it would significantly diminish the existing space to the rear of the existing dwelling. This, together with the extent of the resulting plot sizes of both the existing and proposed dwellings, would disrupt the regular pattern of the surrounding residential properties, which occupy long rectangular plots of a similar size and shape, with largely open rear gardens and would erode the sense of spaciousness to the rear of the dwellings. Moreover, the position of the new bungalows, behind those fronting [address], and their orientation, facing the side boundary of the site, would fail to assimilate sympathetically with the form and layout of the surrounding residential development.

The proposed external materials and overall scale of the bungalows would align with that of the surrounding residential properties, and the Council has not objected to the general appearance of the development in design terms. While they would be visible from the rear of the neighbouring properties, the dwellings’ set back position would reduce their prominence in the streetscape, where the modest plot depth is unlikely to be readily apparent. I am also mindful that the frontage of No. 4 would largely remain unchanged and that the garden on which the proposed bungalows would be sited is not used by the current occupiers of the property for any meaningful amenity purposes. Nevertheless, these factors, including the absence of any specific policy requirement relating to the minimum plot sizes or lengths, do not diminish the extent of the harm that would arise from the proposed development in the terms set out above.

Furthermore, while the developments may fall below the minimum indicative density of 50 dwellings per hectare for sites within sustainable transport corridors set out in Policy PP2 (3) of the Poole Local Plan, adopted November 2018 (PLP), Policy PP2 is clear that housing densities will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Reference is made by the appellant to examples of development nearby which is said to be similar to the appeal proposal, and which it is suggested reflect the established pattern of rear garden structures and plot severance in the surrounding area. [name].2 differs from the development along this part of [address], being set back further from the highway, the general plot size, shape and configuration of the property is typical of others in the immediate vicinity. In addition, while new dwellings have been constructed on land which formed the rear gardens of 30 and [address], these form part of a cul-de-sac development at [address], which extends to the rear of [address]. As such, this development is distinctly different in terms of its characteristics and site context to the appeal site, thereby the circumstances have not been shown to be directly comparable.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard it would conflict with Policies PP27 and PP28 of the PLP, which, among other things, seek development of a good standard of design that reflects local patterns of development and preserves the areas residential character.

The Council’s concern relates to pedestrian visibility at the proposed new access, which is particularly pertinent given the proximity of the site to the nearby school. In order to achieve adequate visibility splays in the interest of pedestrian safety, 2m x 2m visibility splays are required on either side of the proposed new vehicular access. While the submitted site plan2 denotes the provision of 2m x 2m pedestrian visibility splays in both directions, these are within the confines of the driveway area and not to either side as required. Consequently, the submitted details fail to show that the required pedestrian visibility could be achieved, while accommodating the parking layout as proposed.

Nonetheless, despite the alternative position on the frontage, there would be no practical difference between the current and the proposed access arrangement, the layout of which would reflect others along [address] in the vicinity of the site. Moreover, given the proliferation of driveways in the immediate area, pedestrians would be aware of the potential for vehicles egressing from the properties. Similarly, given the context, drivers would be likely to pull out onto the highway cautiously, checking for pedestrians using the footpath. Planning conditions could also be imposed to secure appropriate boundary treatment, to ensure adequate visibility over the site frontage so that oncoming pedestrians would be clearly visible so as to avoid any conflict between them and the drivers of vehicles leaving the site.

Taking these matters together, I therefore conclude that the proposed access arrangements would not have an adverse effect on highway safety with particular regard to pedestrian visibility. In that regard the proposal would not conflict with the aims of Policies PP34 and PP35 of the PLP which seek a safe transport network and among other things, require new development to provide safe access to the highway.

Reference is made by the appellant to an appeal decision at [address] 3 whereby the Inspector, in allowing the appeal, found that the adverse effects of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. However, the specific circumstances in each case are likely to be different, and in any event I have considered this appeal on its own merits in light of the evidence before me.

The site is within 5km of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation and [name] and Ramsar site. As such, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) require the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) where there are likely significant effects from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. However, regulation 63 indicates the requirement for an AA is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal. [name] note that a 2 Drawing 2147 01-01-03 [name] 3 Appeal Ref: APP/V1260/W/21/3273168 completed unilateral undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been submitted as part of the appeal, in view of my overall conclusions resulting in my decision to dismiss the appeal, it has not been necessary to address this in any further detail.

Notwithstanding my conclusions regarding highway safety, I have found that the proposal would give rise to harm to significant the character and appearance of the area and would therefore conflict with the development plan read as a whole.

The Council is unable to demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land, the 2.1 year supply suggested by the appellant is not disputed by the Council. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 d) 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 Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and would also accord with policies in the Framework that encourage the efficient use of land and recognise the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area, including that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes. Despite the modest scale of the development, the proposal for 2 dwellings would nonetheless make a positive contribution to the provision of housing, in the context of a supply shortfall, which weighs heavily in favour of the scheme.

There would also be economic benefits arising from the provision of additional housing, as well as biodiversity net gain. In addition, future occupiers of the development would also benefit from accessibility to shops and services by means other than the private car. Although any benefits in these regards would be tempered by the scale of the development, they would nonetheless attract a degree of positive weight.

The design of the proposed semi-detached bungalows is fairly typical and there is nothing truly innovative or unique in this case, therefore I can only afford this very limited weight.

My attention is drawn by the appellant to a lawful development certificate4 for a large, detached garage and hardstanding in the rear garden of No.10, which it is suggested would impact upon the character and appearance of the area. There is no compelling evidence that the fallback position this presents is not a greater than theoretical possibility, and that if the appeal is dismissed the fallback would not be pursued. Nevertheless, while a garage in this position would introduce a large outbuilding to the rear of No.10, the built form would be limited in height and smaller in scale than the proposed semi-detached dwellings and by its nature, remain ancillary or incidental in form and use to the main dwelling. Thus, the effect of the fallback in this case, would be less harmful than the appeal scheme in terms 4 [name]: P/25/03820/CLP of its effects on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I afford the suggested fallback position little weight.

Compliance with various other provisions of the development plan, including parking provision and renewable energy, and the absence of harm with regards to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and future occupiers of the dwelling is a normal expectation of new development, and is therefore of neutral weight.

The support for the proposed development in the Framework identified above is set against the policies therein which seek good design, which is a key aspect of sustainable development, and indicate that development that is not well designed should be refused. The significant harm to the character and appearance of the area attracts substantial weight against the proposal. Taken together, the benefits of the scheme would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to those which seek to achieve well-designed places. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.