Appeal 6002858

The appeal is dismissed.

There is an appeal at 4 Sopers Lane1, for development of a similar description, to which I have had regard in the determination of this appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposed development on European sites; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties having regard to noise and disturbance; • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to light and outlook; and • whether appropriate provision is made for [name] (BNG).

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No.10) and its garden. Properties along this part of [address], are orientated to front the highway. With the exception of the dwelling at [address] (No.2), they are set back a similar distance from the road, with gardens and/or parking between them and the road, 1 6002472 with low boundary walls or hedges to the front boundaries. They have generous gardens which extend to the rear, which, despite the presence of modest ancillary outbuildings, are largely open. By virtue of the generous nature and length of the rear gardens, together with the absence of any significant built form, there is a strong sense of openness to the rear of the properties. This creates a pleasant sense of consistency to the layout of the development in the immediately area and in particular a strong sense of spaciousness to the rear of the dwellings.

The appeal proposal seeks the construction of 2 detached chalet bungalows on land to the rear of No.10. Vehicular access to a parking area to the front of the new dwellings is proposed between the flank elevation of No.10 and the side boundary of the adjoining property at [address] (No.8).

The proposal would introduce a substantial built form into the generally open area to the rear of No.10. As a consequence of the overall height, scale and massing of the proposed development, it would significantly diminish the existing space to the rear of the existing dwelling. This, together with the extent of the resulting plot sizes of both the existing and proposed dwellings, would disrupt the regular pattern of the surrounding residential properties, which occupy long rectangular plots of a similar size and shape, with largely open rear gardens and would erode the sense of spaciousness to the rear of the dwellings in the row. Moreover, the position of the chalet bungalows, behind those fronting [address], would fail to assimilate sympathetically with the form and layout of the surrounding residential development.

The proposed external materials and overall scale of the proposed chalet bungalows would align with that of the surrounding residential properties, and the Council has not objected to the general appearance of the development in design terms. While they would be visible from the rear of the neighbouring properties, the dwellings’ set back position would reduce their prominence in the streetscape, where their modest plot depth is unlikely to be readily apparent. I also recognise that the frontage of No. 10 would largely remain unchanged. Nevertheless, these factors, including the absence of any specific policy requirement relating to minimum plot sizes or lengths, do not diminish the extent of the harm that would arise from the proposed development in the terms set out above.

Furthermore, while the development may fall below the minimum indicative density of 50 dwellings per hectare for sites within sustainable transport corridors set out in Policy PP2 (3) of the Poole Local Plan, adopted November 2018 (PLP), Policy PP2 is clear that housing densities will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Reference is made by the appellant to examples of development nearby which is said to be similar to the appeal proposal, and which it is suggested reflect the established pattern of rear garden structures and plot severance in the surrounding area. [name].2 differs from the development along this part of [address], being set back further from the highway, the general plot size, shape and configuration of the property is typical of others in the immediate vicinity. In addition, while new dwellings have been constructed on land which formed the rear gardens of 30 and [address], these form part of a cul-de-sac development at [address], which extends to the rear of [address]. As such, this development is distinctly different in terms of its characteristics and site context to the appeal site, thereby the circumstances have not been shown to be directly comparable.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard it would conflict with Policies PP27 and PP28 of the PLP, which, among other things, seek development of a good standard of design that reflects local patterns of development and preserves the areas residential character.

The site is within 5km of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation, collectively known as the [name]. They host protected priority habitats and species including Dartford warblers, nightjars, woodlark, hen harrier, merlin, sand lizards and smooth snakes, typical species of lowland heathland, wetlands and dunes.

The site is also described as being in close proximity to [name], which is a designated SPA and Ramsar site ([name]). The site is designated for its internationally important populations of rare, vulnerable and migratory birds including [name], [name], [name], [name], [name], [name] and [name]. There is also an internationally important assemblage of waterfowl including Dunlin, Redshank and [name], and supporting habitats for seagrass; shallow inshore waters including coastal lagoons; intertidal sediments; saltmarsh; and reedbeds. It was subsequently extended, at which time little egret, [name], and [name] were added to the variety of species.

Recreational pressure, predominantly from those living in close proximity to [name] are causing harm to the heathland ecology and disturbance to the protected birds and their habitat in [name] through recreational activity including sailing, walking, dogs and bait digging along the shoreline. There is, therefore, potential that additional residents at the appeal site, in combination with other development, could result in adverse effects on the integrity of the [name] and [name] and their qualifying features.

There is no dispute between the parties that the likely significant effects on the [name] and [name] could be mitigated by the payment of financial contributions towards [name] and Monitoring, in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document 2020-2025, adopted April 2020 and [name] 2019-2024 Supplementary Planning Document, adopted April 2020. I note the appellants’ willingness to complete a legal obligation to secure the financial contributions, however, an agreement is not before me. Thus, in the absence of a mechanism to secure the necessary mitigation, following appropriate assessment under the regulations, as the competent authority I am unable to conclude, beyond all reasonable scientific doubt, that the appeal scheme, in combination with other development, would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of [name] and [name].

Consequently, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies PP32, PP33 and PP39 of the PLP which seek to ensure that development does not lead to adverse effects upon biodiversity, including the integrity of European and internationally important sites and deliver the required mitigation in a timely manner, and the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

The vehicular access drive which would serve the chalet bungalows would be close to the boundaries of the site shared with No.10 and No. 8, with the proposed parking area positioned a short distance from the side boundary to the rear garden of [address].

The proposed chalet bungalows would have parking provision for 2 cars, between the front elevation of the dwellings and rear boundary of No.10. Vehicles belonging to future occupiers of the development accessing the site, combined with visitor and delivery vehicles, would result in an uplift in vehicular activity at the appeal site generally, which would differ from the current use of the land as garden. However, the additional vehicular movements associated with 2 dwellings would be modest and would be unlikely to generate a significant level of concentrated noise intrusion from car doors closing, engines running or the manoeuvring of vehicles. Thus, while the proposal would result in some additional noise and activity to the side and rear of the neighbouring properties, it would not be to such a level that it would generate a degree of noise and disturbance that would be out of keeping with the surrounding residential area, or have any meaningful impact on the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties having regard to noise and disturbance. Accordingly, it would not conflict with Policies PP27 and PP28 of the PLP which seek development of a good standard of design which provides satisfactory external amenity space for existing occupiers and can be accommodated in a manner which would preserve or enhance the area’s residential character.

The first floor bedrooms to the front elevations of the proposed chalet bungalows (Bedroom 02) would be served solely by a rooflight. While the outlook from these rooms would be somewhat restricted, future occupiers would nevertheless be provided with an outlook, albeit of the sky. Moreover, there is no compelling evidence that the rooflight of the size proposed would not provide adequate levels of light to these bedrooms.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to light and outlook. In that regard, it would not conflict with the aims of Policy PP27 of the PLP which require new development to provide satisfactory internal amenity space for new occupiers.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) requires development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out that under this statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met.

The PPG is clear that BNG has been designed as a post-permission matter to ensure that the biodiversity gain objective will be met for development granted planning permission and that once planning permission has been granted, unless exempt, a Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) must be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of that development. Moreover, the assessment of the application of the BNG hierarchy is for consideration when determining whether to approve the BGP.

The appellant’s BNG Assessment confirms that, taking account of the baseline habitat and hedgerow units, to achieve the 10% net gain and balance the trading rules, off site compensation via the purchase of the required units will be necessary. [name] appreciate the Council’s concern that the biodiversity gain hierarchy, which prioritises on-site gains, has not been followed in this case, the BGP and the securing of BNG is not consequently for consideration further at this stage.

In light of the above, I am satisfied that the proposal could make appropriate provision [name] (BNG), to the extent this is a matter for consideration at this stage. In that regard, it would not conflict with the aims the Act. The Council’s refusal reason refers to Policy PP30 of the PLP, however this appears to relate to heritage assets, consequently it is not relevant to this refusal

The proposal would support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and would also accord with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that encourage the efficient use of land and recognise the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area, including that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes. Despite the modest scale of the development, the proposal for 2 dwellings would nonetheless make a positive contribution to the provision of housing, in the context of a supply shortfall, which weighs heavily in favour of the scheme.

There would also be economic benefits arising from the provision of additional housing, as well as biodiversity net gain. Future occupiers of the development would also benefit from accessibility to shops and services by means other than the private car. Although any benefits in these regards would be tempered by the scale of the development, they nonetheless attract a degree of positive weight.

My attention is drawn by the appellant to a lawful development certificate2 for a large, detached garage and hardstanding in the rear garden, which it is suggested would have a greater and more intrusive impact on the site than the proposed chalet bungalows. There is no compelling evidence that the fallback position this presents is not a greater than theoretical possibility, and that if the appeal is dismissed the fallback would be not pursued. Nevertheless, while a garage in this position would introduce a large outbuilding to the rear of the host dwelling, the built form would be limited in height and smaller in scale than the proposed dwellings and by its nature, remain ancillary or incidental in form and use to the main dwelling. Thus, the effect of the fallback in this case, would be less harmful than the appeal scheme in terms of its effects on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I afford the suggested fallback position little weight. 2 [name]: P/25/03820/CLP

Compliance with various other provisions of the development plan, including parking provision and renewable energy, and the absence of harm with rears to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and future occupiers of the dwelling is a normal expectation of new development is of neutral weight and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The Council is unable to demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land, the 2.1 year supply suggested by the appellant is not disputed by the Council. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework indicates that 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 taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. However, for the reasons set out above, policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, under paragraph 11 d) i) of the Framework, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposed development would not give rise to harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or future occupiers of the proposed chalet bungalows and could make appropriate provision for BNG. However, by virtue of harm to the character and appearance of the area and given my findings in relation to the effects of the development upon the European sites, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no other material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that indicate that permission should be granted. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.