Appeal 6002791

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description on the application form marginally differs to the decision notice in terms of the self-build element and number of bedrooms. However, I am satisfied that the original description accurately describes the appeal development and is therefore reflected above. I have however taken all other relevant matters into account in my recommendation.

It appears prior to the determination of the planning application that the tree referred to in the Council’s third reason for refusal has been removed. It was not protected and the appeal site is not in a conservation area. As the tree is no longer there, the details of the refusal reason would not apply which resultantly means the proposal in this regard would not, in regard to this matter, conflict with [name] (BCS) 2011 Policy BCS9 and Policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan (LP) 2014.

The fourth reason for refusal references the proposed use of a gas boiler which would go against the heat hierarchy referenced in Policy BCS14 of the BCS. The appellant has advised that there had been an error in the document submission, and the correct energy strategy was submitted by the appellant during the life of the planning application. The appellant has confirmed that the intention is for an Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) to be installed notwithstanding the lack of information on the plans. The Council is satisfied that the matter can be dealt with under a condition. I have no reason to disagree. It would therefore mean in this regard that the scheme would not conflict with Policy BCS14 of the BCS and Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

With the above in mind, the main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area and b) highway safety with particular regard to parking provision and manoeuvring.

The appeal site is an open parcel of land directly adjacent a set of terraced dwellings, at the junction of [address] and [address]. Surrounding dwellings are a mix of semi-detached and terraced two storey units, stepping down with the drop in land levels along the road. This results in a strong cohesive and defined building line on both streets. The wider area is characterised by open undeveloped corners. Whilst some have high sided planted boundaries, other lower treatments allow the collective to be read as lending obviously to a pleasant and consistent open feel to the area which is a positive aspect of its character and appearance.

The proposal would sit with the existing building line of [address] in terms of height, design and siting. It would however sit forward of the mirroring dwelling on the opposite corner of [address] which would make the appearance of this proposal much more prominent on the street scene. It would enclose most of the open space leaving a very small gap which would be visually intrusive given the surrounding open corners notwithstanding the opposite hedgerow. Moreover, it’s height and position would exacerbate its close proximity to [address], be imposing to users of the area and give the feel of closing off the open space, harming the street scenes defined open character.

I have limited details on the circumstances at the time of the approval for the dwelling referred to as Number [address]. Moreover, it is not directly comparable with the appeal proposal given it is on the opposite side of the road with different road arrangements. Additionally, it still leaves a sufficient amount of open corner and sits comfortably with the prevailing building lines. It does not change my findings on the main issue.

With this and the above in mind, the appeal scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy BCS21 of the BCS, Policies DM21, DM26, DM27, DM28, DM29 and DM30 of the LP which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The appeal site has three vehicle spots to the rear of the property, one within the garage and two on the tarmacked area off the highway. This would remain unchanged for the appeal proposal with three spaces for two dwellings. The proposed plans also show an additional parking space outside of the red line area which appears to be on the grass verge within the public highway.

It has been acknowledged that the use of the fourth space would require the vehicle to use the dropped kerb for Number [address] and cross a substantial part of the grassed verge and the pathway. This would pose a risk to pedestrians and other users due to the increased intersection one typically wouldn’t expect. As the fourth parking space is outside of the red line area for the scheme, it does not form part of the proposal. Additionally, there is no mechanism to secure the space via a condition, nor is there a way of stopping its use as an informal space within the highway. Notwithstanding the effects that such a venture might give rise to.

This would lead to 3 parking spaces for the two dwellings. Based on the evidence provided there is nothing compelling to suggest that three spaces for the two dwellings is not acceptable for the local area. Even if there were a requirement to have two parking spaces for each dwelling. I am sufficiently convinced that there would be capacity on the surrounding roads to take one additional vehicle based on what I have seen on site in regard to parking restrictions and general highway

Resultantly, the scheme would not lead to an unacceptable effect on the safe use of the highway. Consequently, it would comply with Policy BCS10 of the BSC and Policy DM23 of the LP. Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development would be satisfactory in terms of highway safety and not hindering the free flow of movement.

Concerns surrounding the Council’s handling of the planning application is a matter for the main parties to determine outside of the planning appeal process. Having regard to the evidence before me, I have not considered it further.

Initially there was no reference by the Council that they were unable to demonstrate a supply of housing. In their supporting statement of case, there is an acknowledgement of the shortfall against that required by the Framework and thus the most important polices are out of date. The appellant has not argued to the contrary and in the absence of anything otherwise, I would be taken to the relevant circumstances of paragraph 11.

The appeal scheme would give rise to the harm I have described above. It would be significant and enduring and conflict with the relevant aims of the Framework in specific regard to Section 12 and paragraph 135. I ascribe these matters substantial weight. The proposal would provide housing but as a single unit the difference it would make to supply would be limited. It would be a self-build project but is not secured as such. There is no evidence to suggest there is an undersupply of self-build permissions against the relevant act. The development would be situated in a sustainable location, but this is to be expected for the principle to be acceptable. It would not make effective use of the land or result in a contribution to a well-designed place. It would not secure affordable housing. The appellant has not provided any additional benefits of the scheme. I would thus give them, collectively speaking, limited weight.

With this and the above in mind, it is sufficiently clear that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the circumstances I have set out. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not therefore apply. For the reasons given above, and notwithstanding the lack of harm found against other issues which would be neutral in any balance, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan. I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced and the approach of the Framework, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.