Appeal 6002837

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area as a result of the loss of the open space.

The appeal site is located within the built-up area of Stamford where Policy SP3 of the South Kesteven District Local Plan 2011-2036 (2020) (the LP) is permissive in allowing policy compliant infill residential development in substantially built-up frontages.

The site is a grassed rectangle of open space within a row of two storey dwellings on [address] and extends northwards to [address]. Pedestrian footways flank either side of the site and a tree is located towards the rear, in near proximity to [address].

The wider area is a residential estate consisting of a mix of semi-detached and detached two-storey dwellings. The significant majority of dwellings are aligned in continuous rows along consistent building lines. The built development is broken up in places by areas of open space. Frequently, these are located where roads meet at junctions, but the appeal site contributes to the character of [address] by being one of two such open areas between rows of housing along the northern side of the road. The other, between Nos 42 and 46, contains a substantial mature tree which contributes positively to the wider street scene. In comparison, the appeal site provides less visual enhancement to the surroundings, but regardless, constitutes an important break in the built development and provides relief to an otherwise continuous row of housing along [address].

Similarly, the appeal site contributes positively to the [address] street scene. In views southwards along the Close, the site provides a welcome break in existing development, creating an important sense of openness. Open views through to [address] are possible, creating a spacious character, aiding legibility and permeability and adding variety to the appearance of the street. For these reasons, I find that the openness of the appeal site contributes positively to the character of the area.

The appeal proposals would provide for a detached two-storey dwelling on the site. By reason of its siting, form, scale and appearance, the dwelling would be generally reflective of the surrounding properties and in keeping with the character of existing housing. Design detailing including materials, fenestration and proportions would all take cues from nearby houses. I note that the council considers access, parking and garden provision to be acceptable and consider that the dwelling would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers whilst protecting those of neighbouring residents. I have no reason to disagree with those conclusions.

The appeal site is not protected as open space by any development plan policy that I have been made aware of, and nor do I have evidence that it is identified in any assessment or study of open space as making an important contribution to local provision. Nevertheless, its intrinsic value is to the character of the street scenes in providing spaciousness, openness and relief to the built-up frontages. The proposed dwelling would substantially fill the gap between dwellings, significantly eroding the site’s contribution to the character of the area. The appellant considers that a reduction in the width of the appeal dwelling in comparison with a scheme that was subject to a previous appeal in 2018 mitigates against this harm. I do not agree given that the value of the appeal site’s contribution to both street scenes is through its openness by being undeveloped.

Taking the above into account, the appeal proposals would, in resulting in the loss of the open space, have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of both the [address] and [address] street scenes. I do not share the appellant’s view that the site is a residual, left-over piece of land that makes little contribution to local character. It appears as a purposeful open space allowing visual and functional linkages between [address] and [address]. In this respect I agree with the findings of the 2018 Inspector who found that when the estate was developed, the land was clearly intended to be an open area for the benefit of the residents and not just a gap site reserved for later development.

I conclude therefore, that the proposals would conflict with Policy DE1 of the LP and Policy 2 of the Stamford Neighbourhood Plan (NP) which, amongst other things, require new development to not have an adverse impact on the street scene and to respond positively to local context. In conflicting with these policies, the proposals also cannot achieve compliance with Policy SP3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that development is sympathetic to local character and maintains a strong sense of place and I also find conflict with these policies.

The appeal proposals would provide one additional dwelling within Stamford, identified by the LP as a market town. They would, therefore, be in accordance with the locational requirements of Policy SP2. The Framework recognises the contribution that small sites can make to meeting the housing requirement for an area, although one dwelling would make just a minor contribution to the overall supply of housing. I therefore attribute this benefit limited weight.

The council is not granting sufficient planning permissions to meet the demand for self and custom-build housing and it is suggested a significant shortfall of over 200 plots exists. The provision of one additional self-build dwelling would contribute to meeting this shortfall. The appellant has provided a [name] which would secure the delivery of the dwelling as a self-build property. Despite the small scale of the development, I give this benefit moderate weight given the significant shortfall in self-build plots.

The appellant suggests that the proposed dwelling would exceed national space standards and provide high quality accommodation in terms of amenity space, natural light and outlook. The Nationally Described Space Standards are the minimum floorspace that should be achieved and exceeding these standards is not, in my view, a significant benefit. Likewise, providing future residents with appropriate living conditions is expected of all new housing and I give minimal weight to these factors.

In addition, there would also be a time-limited benefit to the local economy during the construction phase, and additional expenditure in local services and facilities following occupation. Given the size of the development, I give only limited weight to these benefits.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with Policy DE1 of the LP and Policy 2 of the NP. These policies are consistent with the Framework in so far as it seeks well-designed places which are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character. Therefore, the conflict with Policies DE1 and 2 should be given significant weight.

The council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date. The balance in paragraph 11d) of the Framework is therefore engaged.

None of the policies listed in footnote 7 apply to the appeal site and do not therefore provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Paragraph 11 d) ii) must therefore be applied.

Paragraph 11 d) ii) states planning 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 as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for among other things, securing well-designed places.

The council can evidence only a 4.07-year housing land supply. This falls below the requirements of the Framework which seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. I give the benefits of delivering one additional dwelling moderate weight given this shortfall.

Likewise, the council is failing to meet the demand for self-build delivery, and the evidence points to a significant shortfall of available plots. The appellant is proposing to deliver a self-build dwelling and has provided an appropriate mechanism for securing this, through a [name]. The Framework confirms that opportunities should be sought to support small sites to come forward for self-build housing. I therefore give the contribution that this one additional self-build dwelling would make to that shortfall moderate weight.

In my judgment, however, the benefits achieved through the delivery of one additional dwelling to both the housing land supply position and the self-build shortfall, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the adverse impact of the loss of the openness and spaciousness that the appeal site currently provides in the otherwise continuous built-up street frontages.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposals would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area as a result of the loss of the open space. The proposals conflict with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.