Appeal 6002541

Appeal A and Appeal B are both dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals at this location relating to adjoining dwellings. Both appeals are submitted by the same appellant albeit the application forms indicate that there are differences in ownership. The appeals are similar in terms of the roof alterations and extensions proposed to each dwelling, and they share the same surroundings, although they differ in terms of their precise relationship to neighbouring properties. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

With regards to the appeal at [address], the proposed plans indicate a ground floor rear extension. This was not included in the description of the proposed development. I cannot be certain that the ground floor rear extension has been publicised correctly and were I to consider it as part of the appeal scheme, interested parties may be prejudiced. Consequently, I have considered only the development applied for, as set out in the description of the development.

With regards to the appeal at [site address] , the existing front elevation is incorrect, as it shows no 50. However, the proposed elevation drawing for no 48 is correct and I have determined the appeal on the basis of this drawing.

The appellant’s appeal submissions includes photographic and survey evidence of parking availability on street. It is unclear if this information was available at the planning application stage and so I cannot be certain that all parties have had the opportunity to consider this information. Therefore, I have not taken it into account, to do so would be prejudicial.

While the appellant has provided correspondence from the Council’s Conservation Officer suggesting that no 48 is not within the CA, this does not appear to be the case from the published Conservation Area Map and so I have considered no 48 as falling within the designated area of the CA.

The Council has referenced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which includes section 102, which will add section 58B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and requires that in considering proposals that affect a registered garden or its setting, special regard must be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the asset or its setting. However, my understanding is that this section is not yet in force with amendments pending, and so I have not considered it further.

The Council’s second refusal reason refers to the generation of additional on street parking, and that this would be harmful to the appearance, quality and special character of the property and the Stanley Park Conservation Area . However, this refusal reason also includes reference to policy DM41 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 21 ([name] 2) which is concerned with the access, travel and safety needs of all those affected by a particular development. In its officer report, the Council alleges detriment to the appearance of the CA and highway policy. As policy DM41 has been specifically referenced, I have considered the implications of the proposal in terms of parking provision and safety needs also.

Therefore, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon (a) the designated heritage assets: Stanley Park Conservation Area (CA) and the Stanley Park grade II* registered park and garden, (b) the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and privacy, and (c) highway safety, with particular regard to parking availability.

48 and [address] are a pair of semi-detached, two-storey dwellings which retain strong similarities in their overall size and form, set-back from the road, design, and materials. Both are constructed of red tiles and red brick, with a horizontal render band at the upper floor, with defined panel features. The roof of each is hipped, with a distinctive deep overhang. Window openings are similar, with a ground floor bay to each. These properties lie to the south of [address], close to the junction with West Park Drive.

The appeal properties are visible from, and are seen with dwellings extending along West Park Drive, which line Stanley Park. Dwellings extending north along West Park Drive are mostly detached and vary in design with both hipped and pitched roofs, albeit they remain similar in size, set back, and materials to the appeal properties. However, the appeal properties sit more closely with those dwellings extending south along West Park Drive, and they are more consistent with these dwellings in terms of their size, semi-detached form, hipped roof with 1 Blackpool Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, February 2023. overhang, short front gardens, side spacing, and materials, albeit there is some variety in style which adds architectural interest. The consistency in arrangement and materials, combined with the variety in style, adds to the special character of the area, while the hipped roof design affords space between these dwellings, which contributes to the sense of space and leafy character afforded by the park itself, grassed highway verges and street trees.

The CA is centred on Stanley Park itself and the housing surrounding it. Designed by [name], the Stanley Park Conservation Area Appraisal, October 2017, (CAA), advises that the listed park is a superb example of an early 20th century public park, and its key significance is derived from its completeness as a designed landscape. It goes on that the streets around the park contain intact and well-preserved examples of high-quality interwar housing contemporary to the park, with public realm features such as wide grass verges and street trees, all laid out to a street plan specified by Mawson. The CAA describes the original plot layout and external design form to be key features of this interwar housing. From my own inspection, the CAA’s observations are accurate, and they highlight some of the aspects of the CA’s significance. From what I observed of the area, the affinity between the siting and spaciousness around the housing, and the spaciousness of the Park is an important feature of the significance of the CA and a sensitive setting to the Park.

As both appeal properties lie within the CA, section s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

If brought forward at the same time, each appeal scheme would retain the symmetry of this pair of semi-detached houses, and the fenestration and detailing to the front elevations would be unchanged. However, it appears that there are differences in ownership between no’s 48 and 50 and so it would not be possible to impose a condition to secure the bringing forward of both schemes together. Nor is there a planning obligation before me which would ensure this happened, so I cannot be certain that the overall symmetry of this pair would be retained.

The existing ridgeline would be maintained and the proposed dormers to each dwelling would comply with the size requirements of the Council’s Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document 2007. Nevertheless, because of the deep overhang to each roof, the introduction of the hip-to-gable extensions and rear dormers, would add considerable bulk to the roof of each dwelling and I share the Council’s concern that as a result, no’s 48 and 50 would appear top heavy and out of proportion. The unaltered qualities of the original design, which the CAA recognises to be a key feature of this interwar housing, would be eroded. The use of matching materials would not alleviate this harm.

Further, while the appeal properties do not front the park, in views from within Stanley Park and along parts of West Park Drive, the appeal properties are visible and are most closely seen with those dwellings extending south along West Park Drive. As these properties are similarly hipped and share the same deep overhang, the altered form and increased massing proposed to each roof of the appeal properties, would disrupt the rhythm resulting from the consistency in form and arrangement of this group of dwellings, to the detriment of the architectural character of the CA. The proposed roof alterations would also diminish the amount of space between these and neighbouring properties, which would detract from a further, distinctive character of the CA, the sense of space afforded by the park and its leafy and spacious suburban perimeter.

[name] acknowledge that the key significance of the park itself is derived from its completeness as a designed landscape, as the proposal would be detrimental to the quality of the inter-war housing surrounding the park and the sense of space afforded by the park and its leafy suburban perimeter, there would also be some harm to the significance of the registered park from this development within its setting.

The appeal properties rely on on-street parking for all of their parking requirements. Each appeal scheme would result in the provision of an additional bedroom, which could generate further demand for on-street parking. Nevertheless, on-street parking is an established feature of the area, and I am not convinced that this consequence of the proposals would have a harmful impact on the character or appearance of the CA.

Nevertheless, for the foregoing reasons, both Appeal A and Appeal B would diminish the architectural character of each house and the spatial character of the CA. They would harm the character and the appearance of the CA, whereas s72 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of such areas, to which I attach considerable importance and weight. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also recognises the potential for harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset from development within its setting. The proposals would also diminish the significance of the registered park derived from its setting.

Consequently, there would be conflict with policies CS7 and CS8 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 12 ([name] 1), and with [name] 2 policies DM17, DM20 and DM27. Collectively, and amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality, well designed development that conserves or enhances the character and appearance of an area and the significance of heritage assets and their setting, through the careful consideration of scale, mass, layout, height, appearance and architectural style, materials, relationship to adjoining buildings including the roofscape, and parking provision.

The harm to the significance of the CA and the Stanley Park grade II* registered park and garden would be ‘less than substantial’ for the purposes of the Framework. Given the size of the proposed developments, the level of harm would be small and so it would lie at the lower end of the scale. [name] 2 policy DM27 requires that any harm to the significance of the conservation area, will only be permitted where this harm is outweighed by the public benefits. This is consistent with paragraph 215 of the Framework. I will return to this matter below.

The Council’s first refusal reason for each appeal scheme includes reference to [name] 1 policy CS6 and [name] 2 policies DM21 and DM35, which deal with green infrastructure, landscaping and biodiversity respectively. From the available evidence, I am not convinced that the proposal would impact directly on the provision of green infrastructure, any landscaping features, or any biological interests. As such, these policies are not determinative in my consideration of these proposals. 2 Blackpool Local Plan Part 1: [name] (2012-2027), January 2016.

The block of housing which includes 46 to [address], 70 and [address], 176 to [address], and 5 and 6 [name] is tightly arranged, with limited separation distances at the rear, and in some cases, short rear gardens. From rear windows and rear gardens, residents of these properties are already likely to experience a sense of containment as a result of this tight arrangement, along with a degree of mutual overlooking.

[name] have considered the concerns of interested parties to both appeals, I am not convinced that the addition of dormer windows serving bedrooms would significantly increase the level of overlooking experienced by occupiers of neighbouring properties. Upper floor bedroom windows already exist at first floor level and given the urban context, some level of overlooking is to be expected.

However, the introduction of the hip-to-gable extension and rear dormer to both appeal properties, would add considerable bulk to the roof of each dwelling, reducing the gap between dwellings afforded by the hipped roof design and the sense of space resulting from this. Given the present level of containment, this additional bulk, increased sense of enclosure and loss of openness, would impact on the outlook from the rear windows and rear gardens of these neighbouring properties to an unacceptable level.

This would be the case particularly for residents of [address], where some first floor rear windows presently look out onto the side elevation and hipped roof of no 50. The change to a gabled side elevation at no 50, along with the additional massing of the proposed dormer window, would be an oppressive change for occupiers of this neighbouring property, given that the separation distance is only the width of a single carport.

Of further concern is the close physical relationship of no 48 to [address] and [address]. No 48 extends across part of the rear elevation of no 46, and while those windows in the rear elevation of no 46 that are closest to this overlap are obscure glazed, the massing of no 48 will already feel imposing for these neighbours, particularly when using their gardens. Any increase to no 48, even at roof level, would be detrimental to the living conditions of these neighbours, particularly given the roof overhang.

I have considered the appellant’s suggestion that the proposed dormer windows could be frosted, however this would not address the concerns I have identified.

For these reasons, both Appeal A and Appeal B would harm the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook. There would be conflict with [name] 1 policy CS7 and [name] 2 policies DM17 and DM20, which collectively require that new development has regard to scale, height, massing and roofscapes in achieving high quality design, and does not cause unacceptable effects on neighbour amenity by reason of visual intrusion, loss of outlook or overbearing impact.

[name] 2 policy DM41 states that new development will only be permitted where the access, travel and safety needs of all affected by the development are met, and that car parking should be provided in accordance with the standards in Appendix G1. The Council indicates that a 4-bedroom property should be provided with 3 parking spaces.

The Highway Authority indicates that the proposal is not capable of having parking spaces provided that are compliant with highway policy. This response does not go on to explain how, in the circumstances of this particular case, this conflict would result in harm. The Council refers to parking being at a premium in the area, and an increased pressure on on-street parking given the increased size of both appeal dwellings.

While neither appeal property benefits from off street parking, on street parking is available to both sides of [address]. At the time of my visit, there was space to park on street, albeit I appreciate this is only a snapshot in time. [address] is closed off to through traffic at its eastern extent and so those parking here will have to turn in the road to exit, or reverse. However, I have no reason to suspect that this would discourage people parking here, or that it would cause a safety issue, given that there will be no through traffic and speeds will be low. I also noted that neighbouring properties at this end of [address] benefit from some level of off-street parking provision, which is likely to reduce the demand on street.

West Park Drive has parking restrictions and so on street parking is not possible here, but a high number of properties on this road benefit from off street parking. While this is not necessarily the case for all housing in the locality, on street parking is available to many of the nearby streets.

I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that parking availability is a particular issue at this location, or that it is having an adverse impact on highway safety. No’s 48 and 50 already rely on on-street parking to meet their parking needs, and any increase from extending these properties in the manner proposed would be limited. Consequently, from the evidence presented to me, I am unable to conclude that the proposal would be harmful to highway safety, with particular regard to parking availability, and so I find no conflict with [name] 2 policy DM41.

It appears that the Council may not have notified Historic England or the Gardens Trust of the proposals. However, in addition to heritage concerns, I have concluded that the proposed developments should be dismissed for their effect on the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. In these circumstances, little would be gained by delaying the decisions to undertake that notification. However, had my conclusions been otherwise, I would have provided an opportunity for the notification to take place.

I have concluded above that the proposal would result in a small level of harm to the significance of the CA and the significance of the Stanley Park grade II* registered park and garden derived from the setting. The Framework recognises that grade I and grade II* registered parks and gardens are assets of the highest significance. Moreover, it indicates that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Further, the Framework advises that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset from development within its setting, requires clear and convincing justification.

The appellant accepts that there would be no public benefits resulting from the proposals. There would be some benefit to the occupiers of no’s 48 and 50 in providing additional living space. As this would be available to existing and future occupiers and it would improve the flexibility of the housing stock, it would not be a purely private benefit. Nevertheless, these benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified to the significance of these heritage assets, or the additional harm arising in relation to living conditions.

Appeal A and Appeal B conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that these appeals should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, both appeals should be dismissed.