Appeal 6002632

The appeal is dismissed.

Additional plans were submitted to the Council during the course of the planning application. I confirmed the list of plans on which the Council made its decision and I have determined the appeal based on these plans.

The Council has recently consulted on its Regulation 18 Local Plan. Given the early stage of plan preparation, it attracts very limited weight in my consideration of this appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the: • character and appearance of the area; and • living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties, in particular 19 [name] and [address], with reference to outlook and privacy.

Greensands is a detached building that sits within a generous plot of land and was last occupied as a care home. The building, which includes tall, ornamental chimneys, has been enlarged in the past with various extensions which are arranged around a central three-storey gable and assist in breaking up its overall mass. The roof of the building includes pitches and gables. The building, which sits in an angled position towards the road, is set-back from [site address] and is located on higher ground that this road. The site’s front boundary treatment includes a low height wall and vegetation.

[site address] , in this location, is broadly characterised by large, detached dwellings of varying designs that sit within generous plots. Typically, the dwellings have gables and hipped roofs, and the external materials include brick and tiles. The dwellings are normally set back from the road with gardens and parking to the road frontage. The dwellings have a limited presence in the street scene. The verdant frontages provide a leafy and attractive setting for the buildings and provide the area with an informal and rural character.

The proposed development seeks to demolish the existing building and construct a detached block of flats. The proposal would be a large part two part three-storey building which would be arranged around a central portion and taper down in height towards the side boundaries. However, the central portion would be considerable in width and height which, together with the projecting gables, would create a substantial building frontage that would consolidate mass across nearly the full width of the site. As such, while the proposal would respect the building line within the road, it would nevertheless be an imposing building that would appear prominent because of its substantial bulk and mass, thereby detracting from the quality of the area.

The proposed roof form would include fairly steep pitched roofs with sharp angles, in a style that does not appear prevalent in the immediate area. The roof would be externally finished in slate and while a different material could be agreed by condition, the proposal would nonetheless appear hard-edged in the context of the more gradually sloping roofs of the neighbouring buildings, to the detriment of the surrounding character.

Views towards the building would be available through the vehicular access onto the site and when travelling along [site address] towards the south-west. Owing to its scale and bulk, a landscaping scheme or additional planting would not successfully mitigate the presence of the proposed development.

The vast amounts of glazing, particularly on the front and rear elevations, would have the potential for light spill. Nonetheless, the site is located within a developed area where numerous glazed openings already exist, and there is limited evidence before me to suggest that any light spill associated with the proposal would detract from its surroundings. However, this would not justify the appeal scheme.

Thus, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy EN1 of the Allocations and Development Management Plan 2015 (ADMP) and Policy C4 of the Sevenoaks Town Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2038 (2023) (NP). Amongst other things, these policies support proposals which create high quality design and respond to the character of their local area, including in terms of scale, height and materials.

The proposed building would be adjacent to the rear garden of 19 [name] (No 19). It would sit in a similar location to the existing building, which is present on the outlook from No 19’s rear garden. While the proposal would be deeper than the existing building, the proposed roof form would slope upwards away from the shared boundary with No 19. Moreover, No 19 is a wide plot, and therefore the effect on outlook would not be so intrusive as to making living in this neighbouring dwelling untenable.

[address] is a neighbouring property which includes a detached Annexe. While this property is located on lower ground, the scale and mass of the existing building is present in views from this property. The proposed development would be larger and visually more obvious than the existing building on site. That said, the proposed roof would slope away from the common boundary with these neighbours. In addition, this neighbouring plot is significantly wide, so the proposal would not therefore over dominate the outlook of these neighbours.

The Annexe is located near the common boundary with the appeal site. Given the siting of this building in relation to the proposed development, the appeal scheme even with its increased scale, would not appear unduly conspicuous in views from the windows within the annexe.

While not referred to in the reason for refusal, the Council’s Appeal Statement raises concerns with the privacy of adjoining neighbours. The proposal would comprise rooflights on its side elevation facing No 19 and [address], which would sit in an angled position within the roof plane. Further, these rooflights would not be the sole openings to the rooms they serve so they could be secured by condition to be obscured glazed and non-opening were I minded to allow the appeal. While it may be that obscure glazing would not fully eliminate perception of movement or light spill, it would prevent outward views from within the proposed development.

Concerns have been raised with the proposal’s ground floor side windows which would face towards No 19. However, the existing building already has side windows facing towards No 19, and the evidence indicates that both existing and proposed windows would serve habitable rooms. As such, whereas the proposed windows would to some extent be larger than the existing ones, any views would not be dissimilar to the existing situation. Therefore, and having regard to recent case law1, the proposal would ensure that the privacy of the residents of No 19 and [address] would be maintained to an acceptable standard.

The boundary treatment between the site and [address] includes a tall, thick hedge. I observed some damage to this hedge during my site visit, however there is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that it would not be largely retained following development. On this basis, the boundary treatment would restrict views between the proposed ground floor windows and this neighbouring property. Nevertheless, even if the hedge were to be removed, the proposed windows would be at ground floor and because of their position in relation to [address] including the Annexe, the proposal would not lead to an intrusive loss of privacy.

Thus, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties, in particular No 19 and [address], with reference to outlook and privacy. It would accord with ADMP Policy EN2, which amongst other things supports development that provides adequate residential amenities for existing occupiers.

The appellant suggests that any significant reduction in scale would result in a failure to maximise existing opportunities to utilise this brownfield site. However, 1 Bounces Properties Limited v Secretary of State [2023] EWHC 735 (Admin) there is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the appeal scheme is the sole means to optimise the use of the site.

I refer to matters raised by interested parties relating to the effect of the proposal on daylight, sunlight, and living conditions of other neighbouring properties. [name] found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in all other regards it would have been necessary for me to examine these matters in further detail. However, as I have found that the scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider these matters any further.

The parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The appellant advises that the figure is in the region of 2.02 years, which is not disputed by the Council. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 d) ii. of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states 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.

In terms of benefits, the proposal would meet the Framework’s objectives of boosting the supply of housing and would deliver eight new flats within an accessible location close to public transport links. It would re-use a developed site and logically reduce the pressure for development within the Green Belt. Future residents would contribute towards social vitality and there would be some economic benefits during the period of construction and following occupation of the dwelling. The proposal would deliver ecological enhancements. Taken together, these benefits would be moderate given the small number of additional flats.

I have found that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties, in particular No 19 and [address], with reference to outlook and privacy. However, this is a neutral factor that neither weighs for or against the proposed development.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. While the Framework strongly promotes the effective use of land, that is not at the expense of good quality design. Indeed, the Framework seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment. Therefore, the conflict between the development and ADMP Policy EN1 and NP Policy C4 should be given significant weight in this appeal.

Thus, the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR