Appeal 6002942

The appeal is dismissed.

Following amendments made during the course of the application process, I have adopted the description of development set out in the decision notice which more accurately reflects the proposal. This is consistent with that provided within the appeal form.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents on [address] and 5, 7 and [address], with regard to privacy, outlook and daylight; and • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to privacy and whether adequate private amenity space would be provided.

The proposed development would comprise the erection of a pair of one-bedroom, two-storey semi-detached dwellings on land currently used as a car park. The neighbouring property at [address] (No 13) was converted to residential use under a 2005 planning permission, and the appeal scheme would broadly align with its established front and rear building lines.

Policy RD5 of the Tameside Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (March 2010) (the SPD) advises that a minimum separation distance of 21 metres between facing habitable room windows should be maintained in order to maximise levels of natural light and minimise overlooking. Also, that between habitable room windows and two storey blank walls there should be a distance of at least 14m. It acknowledges, however, that for infill sites variations to these guidelines may be acceptable and existing spacing should be taken into account.

The existing 2-storey terraced dwellings on [address] sit at a lower level than the appeal site with approximately 11m separating their habitable room windows from those within the proposed dwellings. Owing to the elevated nature and proximity, the proposed development would adversely impact light and outlook for these neighbouring residents. However, as the first-floor rear rooms are intended to function as bathrooms, reasonably be expected to contain obscure glazed windows, any loss of privacy, including any perceived loss, would not be harmful.

The rear elevations of 5, 7 and [address] contain habitable room windows with small rear yards beyond. Although built form of a comparable scale is already present opposite these properties, the proposed development would bring this significantly closer. As a result, the appeal scheme would unduly dominate the outlook from these properties and materially reduce available light, causing harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

While similar close-knit terraced arrangements exist in the locality, such examples do not justify perpetuating substandard relationships through new development. With regard to consistency within decision making, while the neighbouring dwelling at No 13 was approved under the same development plan, I have limited information before me regarding the specific circumstances of that case. Moreover, the subsequent adoption of the SPD, while not being part of the development plan, constitutes a material consideration.

My attention has been drawn to appeal decisions (APP/M5450/W/24/3343517, APP/H1033/D/24/3340663 and APP/Y1110/W/23/3320777) which conclude that proposed development can be found to be acceptable even if they are contrary to a supplementary planning document. However, this is always a matter of planning judgement which is made on a case-by-case basis. They are not therefore determinative in my decision.

I have found that there would be no harm to privacy for the neighbouring residents on [address]. However, I find that the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents on [address] and 5, 7 and [address], with regard to outlook and light. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policies H10 and C1 of The Tameside Unitary Development Plan (November 2004) (the UDP) which, amongst other things, together seek to ensure that new development responds appropriately to its context and safeguards neighbouring amenity. I have also had due regard to the SPD, which adds to my conclusions in this respect.

The scheme would provide each dwelling with private outdoor amenity space to the rear and sides. Although some overlooking from neighbouring properties would occur, such relationships are typical in a dense urban environment and would not result in material harm. While the outdoor amenity areas are modest in size, they would adequately meet the needs of the one-bedroom dwellings, which are unlikely to be occupied by families. Additional opportunities for outdoor recreation are also available within walking distance at a nearby area of public open space.

I therefore find that, given the urban location, the size and level of privacy afforded to the outdoor amenity space for each of the dwellings would not result in harm to the living conditions of the future occupiers with regard to the provision of adequate private outdoor amenity space. The proposal would comply with Policy H10 of the UDP, in this regard, which requires the design of new development to meet the needs of the potential occupiers.

The appellant contends that the UDP, which dates from 2004, is outdated due to its age. However, paragraph 232 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. I find that Policies H10 and C1 of the UDP have a high degree of consistency with the Framework, specifically the provision in paragraph 135 that developments should result in a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. On this basis, I do not find it to be out of date in relation to the Framework paragraph 11 d). Moreover, it is agreed by the main parties that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and as such the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is not engaged.

My attention has been drawn to the benefits of the proposal, including the modest contribution to housing supply, the associated economic activity during construction and once occupied, the anticipated [name] and the additional Council Tax receipts. The scheme would also provide smaller, more affordable homes in a sustainable location. However, the weight attributed to these benefits is tempered given that only 2 dwellings are proposed. Nevertheless, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

Although the main parties disagree over the site’s historic openness, my assessment must be based on the current circumstances. The site’s previous condition has not therefore been determinative in my decision.

I acknowledge that the Council have not raised concerns with regards to character and appearance, parking provision, highway safety, ecology, [name], air quality, flooding and drainage. However, these are neutral matters which do not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.

As set out above, I have found that the living conditions of future occupiers would be acceptable. However, I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed