Appeal 6002763

The appeal is dismissed.

In relation to the emerging plan, the Mid Sussex District Plan 2021-2039, [name] (Regulation 19) which is at examination stage, there remains unresolved objections to relevant policies, and therefore this plan would carry minimal weight.

The appellant has submitted a [name] (UU) to attempt to deal with refusal reason 4 and to secure financial contributions towards mitigation for [name] and Monitoring and the provision and maintenance of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace. The appellant has also submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to deal with refusal reason 5. The Council has stated there are shortfalls in the submitted UU and the FRA does not include information on the access route, however, as I am dismissing the appeal for the other reasons, I have not sought any further clarification on these matters or addressed them in any more detail.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the: • Character and appearance of the area. • Living conditions of Charnwood and Woodcote, with particular regard to privacy and outlook, and future occupiers of the proposed dwelling with particular regard to privacy.

The surrounding residential area is characterised by single and two-storey detached homes of similar style in relatively spacious, uniformly sized plots, primarily enclosed by mature vegetation boundaries.

Although the surrounding building lines are not entirely uniform, they generally follow the direction of the roads with a consistent set-back. Woodcote’s boundaries also follow these road lines; however, the existing dwelling is positioned unusually, allowing the building line between [site address] and [address] to read as a continuous, coherent corner frontage.

The proposed five-bedroom home would align with Woodcote’s front building line. However, it would project the built form further towards [site address] , in contrast with the established pattern of development in the area.

Consequently, the proposed prominent dwelling set, in an unusually shaped plot, positioned close to its plot boundaries, would appear cramped and at odds with the prevailing spacious and relatively formal character and appearance of the area.

Thus, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 (adopted March 2018) (LP), which states that development, among other things, is of high-quality design and layout. It is also in conflict with Policies EG3 and EG5 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2016) (EGNP) which, requires, amongst other things that development is in keeping with the scale, height, materials and site coverage of the surrounding area.

The proposed five-bed dwelling’s usable private amenity space would be largely confined to the immediate rear of the dwelling. The triangular form and limited space between the proposed dwelling and its boundaries significantly reduces the way in which it could be comfortably used.

The proposed predominantly blank and wide two-storey gable so close to the patio doors on the neighbouring elevation would be overbearing. It would therefore visually dominate the occupiers of Woodcote’s outlook from the living space served by the patio doors. However, any overlooking from the proposed cloakroom, bathroom and ensuite first-floor windows facing towards Woodcote could be mitigated by a condition requiring obscure glazing.

Views from the proposed first floor Bedroom 3 window facing Charnwood would be from an oblique angle, over some distance and would be partly screened by mature boundary vegetation. Therefore, Charnwood would not be overlooked and there would be no harm to living conditions with particular regard to privacy.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of its future occupiers as well as the occupants of Woodcote. It therefore conflicts with Policy DP26 of the LP in that development must, among other things, not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing nearby residents and future occupants of new dwellings.

The main parties agree that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. 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 National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) taken as a whole.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and potential future occupants. This would conflict with the relevant policies outlined above. I afford these harms and conflicts significant weight.

The Framework is clear that the provision of a self-build dwelling can make an important contribution to housing delivery, therefore I attach moderate weight to the provision of one new self-build home. I also acknowledge that the site is within a sustainable urban residential location and attribute moderate weight to this. However, the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.