Appeal 6002846

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:  the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area,  the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Nos 1 and 7 [site address] , with particular regard to privacy and outlook,  whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outdoor amenity space,  the effect of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA).

[site address] and the surrounding area contain a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached properties of varying plot sizes, separation distances, styles and heights. Roof forms are varied including hipped, barn hipped and pitched. Although the separation distance between dwellings varies, sufficient gaps remain between neighbouring properties and boundaries to ensure that buildings do not appear cramped within their plots. The fenestration arrangement of existing semi-detached properties is also balanced which contributes positively to a sense of symmetry between paired dwellings.

The appeal site is currently occupied by a modest sized bungalow with hipped roof on a large plot that is elevated from the road. The plot has several constraints, including a narrow road frontage. While it opens out into a wide plot, properties to the north and south are built close to some of these boundaries. However, the existing bungalow’s modest scale, hipped roof and single storey nature ensures it does not appear cramped.

Notwithstanding this, the principle of demolishing the bungalow and sub-dividing the plot has been accepted, with planning permission recently granted for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of a pair of two-storey semi-detached properties with hipped barn style roofs1. However, the proposed dwellings are materially different from the previously approved scheme.

The footprint and total floor area of the proposed dwellings are significantly larger than the previously approved scheme; both the width and depth of the properties have increased. The two-storey flank elevation of Plot [address] to the boundary with No 7 [site address] . Due to the shape of the plot, the proposal would appear to span the full width of the plot when viewed from [site address] , with the flank side elevation of No 7 appearing to project forward of the front elevation of Plot 1. Consequently, although it would be set back from the road, the proposal would have a cramped appearance within the street scene, appearing at odds with surrounding properties.

The increased depth and width would result in a bulkier form of development of excessive size and massing relative to the plot and surrounding properties, compared to the previously approved scheme. This is evidenced by the deep gabled flank elevations with shallow roof pitch. The flank elevations include several glazed windows in an attempt to break up the massing. However, their depth, height and prominence compared to other neighbouring properties, mean that the windows do not provide sufficient articulation or visual interest to offset the increased massing.

The proposed bricks, roof tiles and window style would match the surrounding properties and the ground-floor front projection would assist in breaking up the front elevation. However, unlike nearby paired properties to the south, the void to solid ratio appears unbalanced; the fenestration size appears disproportionately small, leaving the brickwork appearing overly dominant. Moreover, the proposed fenestration spacing differs between the two paired properties, creating a discordant and unbalanced appearance between the two dwellings that, in my view, fails to represent good design.

The appellant suggests that the original scheme with a hipped-barn roof was less traditional than the current scheme. However, given the variety of roof forms in the area, I find that neither roof form in itself would appear at odds with the character of the area; therefore, this does not weigh in favour of the scheme.

For the reasons above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies DM10 of the Woking Development Management Policies (2016) (DMP) and Policies CS21 and CS24 of the [name] (2012) (CS). These policies, taken together and insofar as relevant, require that development avoids harm to the character and appearance of the area, respects and makes a positive contribution to the street scene within which it is located. 1 Ref: PLA/2021/0615

No 7 is a single-storey dwelling located north of the appeal site. To its rear is a conservatory located close to the shared boundary with the appeal site and a raised patio area. Beyond this, the rear amenity space is hard surfaced providing vehicular parking, with a single storey flat roof outbuilding adjacent to the shared boundary with the appeal site.

The proposed dwellings would be set back, behind the rear elevation of No 7. The flank wall of the dwelling on Plot [address] to and run parallel to the shared boundary, extending along almost the full length visible from the rear of No 7, and would also project significantly above the existing outbuilding.

Although the shared boundary angles away from the rear of No 7, it does so only marginally. Given the depth, two-storey height and proximity of the proposed side elevation, the proposal would have a significantly overbearing effect on the outlook from the rear of No 7.

This elevation would also feature two first-floor windows serving en-suites that would be visible from the rear of No 7. However, as these windows would be positioned halfway along the flank elevation, angled away from the rear of No 7, and obscurely glazed, I find that, collectively, these factors would ensure there would not be a harmful perception of overlooking. Nonetheless, this does not outweigh the overbearing effects of the proposal.

No 1 is a two-storey detached dwelling located south of the appeal site and set on slightly higher ground. The plot of No 1 is an irregular shape, with part of the shared boundary running diagonally between No 1 and the appeal site. No 1 has two garden areas, one to the side and a larger garden to the rear.

The front elevation of the proposed dwellings would align approximately with the rear elevation of No 1. However, due to the angled boundary, the dwelling on Plot 2 would only be approximately 3 metres from the shared boundary at its closest point. Consequently, when viewed from the outside amenity space at the side of No1, the front elevation of Plot 2 would appear visually overbearing given its proximity and height, which would be to the detriment of the occupiers’ living

The front elevation of Plot 2 also includes a first-floor front window serving a bedroom close to the shared boundary. While it would not directly overlook the side amenity space of No 1, oblique views would be possible, and its close presence would give the perception of overlooking.

The flank elevation of Plot 2 would span nearly the entire depth of the relatively narrow rear garden of No 1. Although this elevation includes several windows, their impact is minimal in breaking up the massing of the elevation due to the depth of the proposed dwelling and shallow roof pitch, resulting in a vast expanse of brickwork. Although the elevation would be set back from the shared boundary and maintain much of the existing gap, because of its scale and design, it would appear overbearing in the outlook when viewed from the rear of No 1 and its rear garden, even after accounting for the lower land levels at the appeal site.

I acknowledge that given the siting of the proposal to the north of No 1 and its setback from the boundary it would not have an adverse impact on daylight and sunlight. This however does not negate my concerns with regards to the overbearing impact of the proposal.

For the reasons above, on this main issue, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 1 and 7 due to significant overbearing effects arising from its siting, scale and massing and due to a perceived loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 1. The development would therefore be contrary to the aims of Policy CS21 of the CS, Woking Borough Council Local Development Documents -Amenity, Privacy and Daylight - Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2022) and the [name] (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate, together with other things, to the protection of residential living conditions.

Policy DM10 of the DMP seeks outdoor amenity space that is appropriate in size to both the type of accommodation and the characteristic of the locality for each new dwelling. Policy CS21 of the CS also requires schemes to provide appropriate levels of private amenity space. The policies themselves do not indicate what is deemed an appropriate size, however the Council’s supplementary planning document for Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight 2022 (SPD) advises that an area at least as big as the building footprint should be provided.

Whilst garden sizes in the locality do vary, from my observations they appear to broadly align with the footprint size of the associated property. Each of the proposed properties would have a footprint of approximately [address] metres. The garden size provided for plot 2 would be considerably larger than this and would extend out by over 7 metres to the side of the property. Therefore, I find that this space would be appropriate relative to the size of the property for the outdoor domestic and recreational needs of the family it is intended to support, including playing, drying of clothes and sitting out.

Turning to plot 1, the size of the amenity space here would be noticeably less than the footprint of the proposed dwelling and would appear disproportionate relative to the size of the property. It would therefore not provide appropriate amenity space for the future occupiers, failing to accord with the guidance set out in the SPD and would also not reflect the garden size characteristics of the locality, including those on [site address] , Fairbanks and Wych Hill Park which are typically proportionate to the size of the properties. I note that a large proportion of existing trees and planting would be retained and that it would receive adequate sunlight through the day, this though does not alter my findings above.

On this issue I conclude that whilst plot 2 would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outdoor amenity space, plot 1 would not. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM10 of the DMP, Policy CS21 of the CS and the SPD. The aims of which, in so far as relate to this main issue, I have already set out.

The appeal site lies within 5km of the [name]. The SPA is defined as a European Site as it provides habitat for ground-nesting bird species including nightjars, woodlarks and [name]. It has been established that residential development within the zone of influence would result in likely harm to the protected area through recreational disturbance. The proposal would result in a net increase in dwellings, and in combination with other permitted developments, there would be a likely significant effect on the integrity of the SPA.

Policy CS8 of the CS requires new residential development beyond a 400m threshold, but within 5km of the SPA to make an appropriate contribution towards mitigation in line with the [name] Strategy 2022. The strategy includes securing Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), and a [name] and Monitoring tariff (SAMM) from developments. The SANG and landowner payment elements of the SPA tariff are encompassed within the [name] (CIL).

The Council indicate that a SAMM financial contribution of £1,273 is required and this should be secured through a legal agreement. However, I have no such agreement before me. In the absence of a signed and completed legal agreement, I have no mechanism to secure the above mitigation.

In the absence of adequate mitigation, the scheme would conflict with Policy CS8 of the CS and Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan (2009) which seek to protect [name]. The proposal would also fail to address the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

Within the Officer report the Council raised concerns that the proposal would not achieve satisfactory vehicle turning space, finding conflict with Policy CS18 of the CS. The appellant has provided a vehicle tracking diagram for each of the plots. However, the tracking diagram for plot 2 appears to go beyond the site boundary. Thus, I am not convinced that appropriate turning could be achieved. Notwithstanding this, the policy conflict was not carried across in the formal decision notice. However, as the decision does not turn on this matter, I have not pursued this matter further.

The proposal would deliver two family homes with a net gain of one additional dwelling, in a location where the principle of development is acceptable and it would contribute to the supply of housing within the Borough. Given the scale of the scheme these benefits attract modest weight.

Although the proposal would provide acceptable outdoor amenity space for future occupiers of Plot 2 I have identified that harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the [name]. The conflict with the Council’s development plan policies in respect of the above issues are a matter to which I afford significant weight, and which outweigh the identified benefits of the proposal.

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. The appeal is dismissed.