Appeal 6002741

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Stanhope Conservation Area (SCA); • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in regard to privacy; and • whether the development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupants in regard to private amenity space and privacy.

[address] forms part of the larger SCA. The appeal property is an attractive example of simple local architecture and is part of a stone terrace that faces [site address] . The property includes a long narrow rear garden that slopes steeply downwards to a hardstanding area, that serves domestic garages which are accessed off [address]. Within the garden a high blockwork retaining wall has been constructed which is bound by timber fencing and the lower portion of the garden is covered in black plastic.

The significance of the conservation area in the vicinity of the appeal site is defined, in part, by historic vernacular architecture comprising mostly of residential dwellings constructed from local stone, set within Burgage plots; a traditional layout resulting in properties with narrow, long rear gardens. [name], adjacent to the appeal site dates from the early 1900s, and its position directly behind properties that front on to [site address] is an early example of backland development.

However, its age, layout and design is such that it clearly reads as part of the historic core of the town. In the area of the appeal site the SCA derives much of its character and appearance from buildings constructed from local stone, dating from the turn of the century or before, and long narrow gardens which, along with the appeal property, make an important contribution to its historical and architectural significance.

The proposal is for the erection of a four bedroom dwelling. Due to slope of the site ground works and retaining walls are required to create a flat area to allow for its construction as well as the creation of a flat front garden area and a small terraced rear garden. The variance is ground level is such that from the front the dwelling would appear to be 2 storey and to the rear would be 1.5 storey. A single storey garage would be located at the bottom of the slope, and due to the proposed ground works, the ground level of the front garden and dwelling would be higher than the garage. A flight of steps is proposed from the existing hardstanding off [address] to allow for access to the dwelling.

The proposed scheme would result in the introduction of a new dwelling that would front on to an area of hardstanding adjacent to some garages off [address]. The proposed development would utilise garden ground and would be positioned to the rear of existing dwellings that face [site address] , this relationship is such that the scheme could be considered to be backland development, even though it would have a separate access.

A Masonic Hall is close to the appeal site and is also set behind the existing buildings that face directly on to [site address] . However, unlike the appeal scheme it has been designed to face [site address] , with the primary elevation being visible through a gap between the frontage development; it also has a later rear extension on the elevation that faces [address]. This differing orientation of the buildings would result in an unsatisfactory arrangement that would not reflect the typical pattern of development in the historic core.

Both the [name] and [address] are historic examples of backland development, which as detailed above, respects and integrates well with the established built environment and layout within the SCA, in light of this they don’t set a precedent for the scheme proposed.

It is acknowledged that architecture in the area is varied. Still, buildings within the lower half of the gardens of the dwellings on [address] and [site address] consist mostly of ancillary buildings such as timber sheds and stone garages. The proposed dwelling would be significantly forward of the building line of [address] and higher and more elevated than the other buildings in the lower half of the rear gardens. The position, height and elevated ground level of the proposed dwelling, would be such that it would appear as a dominant and incongruous form of development, particularly when viewed from [address].

The appeal scheme would incorporate some traditional design elements, including local stone and windows with a vertical emphasis. Yet, overall, it would appear as an inappropriate addition in relation to the established built environment within the SCA, resulting in the subdivision of garden ground and the erosion of the historic pattern of development; which are factors that make a positive contribution to the character of the SCA. While the appeal site is on the edge of the conservation area the magnitude of the resulting harm means that the proposal would detract from the area as a whole.

For the reasons detailed above the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the Stanhope Conservation Area (SCA). Therefore, it would conflict with s72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policies 6, 29 and 44 of the County Durham Plan 2020 (CDP). When read together these policies seek to ensure that new development does not result in inappropriate backland development, is appropriate in terms of scale and layout; and contributes positively to an area’s character, identity and heritage significance.

In the words of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. The totality of that harm would be at the middle of the spectrum. Nevertheless, this is a matter that should be given considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that where the development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this should be weighed against the public benefits.

The proposed development would provide a new dwelling in a sustainable location. This is consistent with the policies in the Framework that seek to deliver a sufficient supply of homes and make an effective use of land. There would also be associated economic and social benefits arising from the construction period.

Several representations cite the benefits associated with the visual improvement of the garden ground, a large portion of which is covered in black plastic. Still, I am not convinced that the proposed scheme is the only way to improve the appearance of the appeal site. Most neighbouring gardens are well maintained and attractive, despite also being on a slope. Therefore, I afford only very limited weight in favour of the development in this regard.

On the other hand, the Framework confirms that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. Furthermore, it also seeks to achieve well-designed places. Given the scale of the scheme the public benefits of the redevelopment of the site are modest; particularly when countered by the provisions of the Framework relating to design and heritage assets. Given the importance attached to conserving the historic environment, the public benefits do not outweigh the significant harm that would be caused to the heritage asset.

The proposed dwelling would have windows that serve habitable rooms on all external elevations. In addition, the final ground level within the appeal site would be several metres lower than the properties on [site address] .

To ensure that the privacy of neighbouring and future occupants is preserved, the Council's Residential Amenity Standards SPD (SPD) provides guidance on minimum separation distances between elevations with habitable rooms. Within paragraph 3.2 the SPD requires a minimum separation distance of 21m between habitable room windows. Further, paragraph 3.4 states that in instances where there is a significant change in levels these distances should be increased by an additional 1m for every full 1m that the floor level of the development would be above the affected floor level of the neighbouring property. This can be relaxed where the impacts on privacy can be reduced, such as through obscure glazing, boundary treatments, restricted opening and directional windows.

My assessment is based on the scheme before me and based on the evidence, including my site visit, I am not certain that the mitigation measures detailed above would be appropriate in this instance.

There would be a degree of separation between the windows on the proposed dwelling and those on the dwellings on [site address] , some of which would be at an off-set position. Still, it is not clear that the proposal would meet the requirements of the SPD. Given the proximity of the dwellings on [site address] , and the variance in ground level between the two, it is not clear that there is a sufficient separation distance to ensure that the scheme would not result in mutual overlooking between windows. In light of this I am not convinced that the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in terms of privacy. A lack of objections from neighbouring occupants does not resolve my concerns in this regard.

The gardens of the dwellings on [address] and [site address] slope steeply downwards towards the southwest, allowing a clear view into them from [address]. Also, most are bound by low stone walling which also allows for overlooking between gardens.

The position of the windows on the proposed dwelling is such that it would be likely to overlook the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. However, as detailed above, these gardens do not currently have the level of privacy typically associated with a rear garden space. As such the proposal would be unlikely to result in a material degree of harm to the privacy of neighbouring occupants, when they are using their gardens, over and above the existing arrangement.

I have found that the development would not harm the privacy of neighbouring occupants in their gardens. Notwithstanding this, for the reasons detailed above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in regard to privacy due to an insufficient separation distance between windows. Therefore, it would conflict with Policies 29 and 31 of the CPD and the guidance provided within the SPD which require that new developments provide high standards of amenity and privacy.

The majority of dwellings in the area have large rear gardens that adequately accommodate the needs of occupants. The proposed dwelling would have a relatively small flat garden to the front and a small garden area to the rear that would be mostly stepped in order to accommodate the slope of the site, and the groundworks necessary to form a flat area for the dwelling. The front garden would be open to public view and would not constitute private outdoor amenity space.

The SPD provides guidance on the standard of external amenity areas required in order to meet the needs of occupants. Paragraph 3.8 states that ‘new residential housing developments should incorporate usable, attractively laid out and private garden space, having regard to the size of the dwelling and character of the area’. In addition, paragraph 3.[address] should be a minimum of 9m long, when measured from the rear elevation to the rear boundary.

Based on the evidence before me, I am not certain that the rear garden is 9m long and as a significant proportion is stepped this limits the usability of the space. Therefore, I am not satisfied the sufficient external amenity space would be available to allow the occupants to carry out typical activities associated with a family home of this size, including space for children to play, to hang out washing, or sit outdoors.

The front garden may meet, or be close to meeting, some elements of the guidance within the SPD, but this does not address my concerns regarding the usability and size of the rear garden. Also, changes to the retaining wall or alternative ground works may allow for the formation of a larger garden area, but my assessment is based on the scheme before me.

As detailed in the section above it is likely that the proposed scheme would result in a window to window distance that would be likely to result in mutual overlooking which would harm the privacy of future occupants as well as neighbours. Furthermore, there is a [name] to the southeast of the appeal site which has windows on its side elevation, which would be close to the proposed dwelling. While this is not a residential property, users of this building would overlook habitable rooms of the proposed dwelling which would be likely to also result in harm to the privacy of future occupants.

The Masonic Hall may be used infrequently and the rooms that overlook the appeal site may currently be used for storage. However, there is no guarantee that the building will be used in this way in perpetuity. As such, the current usage pattern does not resolve my concerns regarding the impact of the hall on the privacy of future occupants.

For the reasons detailed above, the proposed development would fail to provide suitable living conditions for future occupants in regard to private amenity space and privacy. Therefore, it conflicts with Policies 29 and 31 of the CDP and the guidance provided within the SPD which requires that new development provides high standards of amenity and privacy; and that future occupants would have acceptable living conditions.

My attention has been drawn to an application for planning permission that was granted for the erection of a dwellinghouse to the rear of Front Street1. However, based on the evidence before me, this application was not determined against the current development plan. As such, I cannot be certain that the circumstances in that instance were the same as the appeal before me.

The absence of harm in regard to matters, such as the principle of the development, internal space standards, and highway safety are neutral factors which weigh neither for nor against the proposal. 1 3/2000/0082

The development would make a positive contribution to the supply of housing in an accessible location. Yet, in the context of a single dwelling I can attribute only limited weight in this instance.

I have carefully considered the comments submitted in support of the proposal, some of which have been addressed in my reasoning above.

I note comments regarding the potential for the development to increase house prices in the area, however this is not a planning matter.

The appeal scheme would not have a materially harmful effect on the privacy of neighbouring occupants in their gardens. Nevertheless, the proposal would harm character and appearance of the area and the significance of the SCA as a heritage asset. It would also harm the privacy of neighbouring occupants in their homes and would fail to provide suitable living conditions for future occupants in terms of privacy and external amenity space.

Overall, the proposal conflicts with the development plan 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.