Appeal 6002911

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling sited within a large plot at the end of [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, with two-storey semi-detached dwellings set within generally proportionate plots. Although there is some variation in plot size and shape, the area has a spacious suburban grain, with houses generally sitting comfortably within their curtilages and with discernible gaps and garden spaces contributing to the street’s open spatial character.

No. 35 occupies a visually prominent position at the end of the cul-de-sac, and close to the nearby recreation ground. Its wide side garden is not protected open space, nor is its status as a corner plot determinative. Nevertheless, it contributes positively to the spacious character and visual relief at this end of the street.

The proposal would introduce a detached two-storey dwelling into an area which presently reads as open side curtilage. Although the dwelling would not be excessive in height and would maintain adequate separation distances, its considerable footprint and width, together with its siting and the subdivision of the plot would result in a cramped form of development. The new dwelling would appear compressed within the available space rather than as a natural continuation of the existing pattern of development. Consequently, the host dwelling would be left with a noticeably reduced curtilage, and the resulting plot arrangement would appear contrived and overly intensive.

The appellant argues that corner and end-of-run plots are often capable of accommodating additional built form and that corner plots are not inherently unsuitable for development. However, each proposal must be assessed against its particular context. In this case, the size of the existing plot, together with its relationship with the end of the cul-de-sac and adjoining open surroundings, mean that the existing spaciousness is an appreciable component of the local townscape. The proposal would thus erode the visual relief presently experienced at the end of [address].

Whilst the proposed dwelling would be smaller than a pair of semi-detached dwellings, it would still be read as a sizeable, detached dwelling. It would appear as an intensive insertion within the plot, rather than as a subordinate or well-integrated addition.

Although the proposed materials and general design approach would reflect the broad appearance of nearby dwellings, these factors would not overcome the more fundamental harm arising from the subdivision of the plot, the resulting spatial compression, and its impact on the streetscene and established grain of development.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with Policies 25, 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 (the ‘Local Plan’) insofar as they seek to ensure proposals are of high standard of design and layout and respect the character and townscape features of the surrounding area.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) is engaged. As such, it is necessary for me to determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

I have found conflict with Policies 25, 32 and 33 of the Local Plan which are consistent with the Framework. Against that, the proposal would provide one additional dwelling within the built-up area of Horsham, representing an efficient use of land within a sustainable urban location. However, the addition of a single dwelling would make only a minor contribution to the overall housing supply but, given the shortfall, this nonetheless attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

I note that no objections were raised by the Highway Authority or the Council's arboricultural officer, and I have not identified any unacceptable effects in respect of highway safety, drainage or neighbouring living conditions. An absence of harm with regard to these matters and others is a neutral factor which neither weighs against or in favour of the proposal.

The appellant also refers to an error within the Council's assessment concerning the presence of a side-facing window. However, the reason for refusal does not rely upon overlooking or the detailed fenestration of the proposed dwelling. Rather, it is founded upon the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, this matter does not materially affect my assessment.

There would be some minimal economic benefits during construction and from future occupants’ contributions to the local economy through the use of services and facilities. I have attached limited weight to this consideration.

The proposal would deliver one additional dwelling within an established residential area within the built-up area of Horsham, where future occupiers would have access to services, facilities and employment opportunities. This aligns with the Framework which seeks to boost the supply of housing and the effective use of land in accessible locations. In the context of the Council's significant housing land supply shortfall, this benefit attracts moderate weight.

Against these benefits, I have found that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. The subdivision of the plot and insertion of a detached dwelling would erode the established spatial pattern of development, diminish the spacious character of this part of [address] and result in a cramped and overly intensive form of development. This would be contrary to Paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments function well and are sympathetic to local character. It would also conflict with Paragraph 129 of the Framework which states that planning decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens). Therefore, I afford this harm significant weight.

When assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, I conclude that the adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the moderate benefits. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not indicate that planning permission should be granted.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.