Appeal 6002871

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the above banner heading has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as this concisely describes the development.

The works as described above has already taken place at the appeal site. The appeal has therefore been assessed on a retrospective basis.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the development on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers with particular regard to outlook and natural light.

The appeal site comprises a four-storey building known as [address], located on the north side of [site address] . The building was a former mill that was previously used as offices until planning permission was recently granted for its conversion to apartments and is now in residential use.

The development seeks retrospective planning permission for the conversion of part of the basement into three residential units.

All three flats are single aspect with one high level window serving the bedroom and one high level window serving the kitchen/dining, lounge area. The inside corner flat has a severely comprised outlook, as it directly faces a four-storey wall at close proximity. Additionally, all three flats rely solely on high-level north facing windows, which provide limited natural light. The elevated window position further restricts views and light penetration. The combination of a basement location, single aspect design, and restricted window provision creates dark and oppressive living environments with an over-reliance on artificial lighting. This fails to deliver an adequate standard of residential amenity and is contrary to established principles of good design.

In coming to such findings, I have had due regard to the size of the windows, but this would not alter my findings as I still find the overall quality of accommodation to be unacceptable. There may be a lack of technical evidence although the onus is indeed on the appellant to demonstrate adequate living environments/relevant assessments. My onsite observations did in any event demonstrate that there is a lack of outlook and natural light, and the units appeared dark and oppressive. The relationship between buildings may be typical of historic mill environments but this does not mean that there is no harm nor would it justify harmful development. I have assessed this scheme accordingly on its own merits having regard to the context of the site and its arrangements.

The appellant explains that daily activities within the apartments do not rely on external views. However, sustainable planning and good design principles means providing acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupiers. The development results in substandard living conditions which cannot be described as being sustainable. Planning policy may not protect the retention of a particular view. However, what is a requirement is for proposals to not harm the amenity of existing or prospective users and residents. The substandard quality of accommodation fails in this regard.

The appellant suggests some mitigation in relation to outlook in the form of screening/finishes which could be controlled via a condition. I am not however satisfied that this would sufficiently overcome the harm identified as outlook is still compromised and it would also not alter the identified harm in relation to natural light.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development unacceptably harms the living conditions of existing and future occupiers with particular regard to outlook and natural light. It is therefore contrary to Policies DS5 and HO9 of the [name], 2017 which together, amongst other matters, requires development proposals to not harm the amenity of existing or prospective users and residents. For the same reasons, the development is also contrary to Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework relating to achieving well designed places.

I understand that three basement flats in the right-hand corner of the building were granted planning permission and these apartments were relocated due to unexpected groundwater leakage. Upon request, the appellant has provided the decision notice1 and approved plan which I have had regard to. The appellant explains that the three formally approved apartments still exist and is willing to forgo these. However, such matters would not alter my findings in relation to the above main issue and scheme I am considering. To this end, the scheme before me is in a different location/context and is of a different arrangement to that of the previously approved including window positionings and outlook. As a result of this and even if there is a fallback position, I do not find the previously approved scheme to be directly comparable to the scheme before me which I have assessed on its own merits. 1 20/05865/MAF

There are some social, environmental and economic benefits arising from the proposals including the contribution towards the local district housing supply particularly if the three previously approved units remain. I am also aware of the claims regarding efficient use of land, sustainability, employment of builders, regeneration of the historic mill, central location etc but this would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified particularly given the small-scale nature of the scheme. Those matters not in dispute would not weigh in favour of the appeal but rather be a neutral factor in my overall decision. The appellant refers to other similar mill conversions locally with worse outlook, but I have insufficient detail to provide comments on. I have considered this scheme based on its own merits.

The refusal may indeed leave completed dwellings unused and I appreciate the technical difficulties associated with the site but again this would not alter my findings in relation to the above main issue nor would it be sufficient to justify harmful development. Future permissions for the rest of the mill building would be subject to its own assessment and thus has no bearing on this appeal.

The development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations, either individually or in combination that would outweigh the identified harm and associated plan conflict. I conclude that the appeal is therefore dismissed.