Appeal 6002944

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the residents of No [address], with regard to outlook.

The area is suburban, predominantly characterised by detached and semi-detached properties with a varied building line. Whilst there is diversity in the streetscape with a mix of architectural styles, including roof forms, materials and ages, there is a general uniformity in the grain of development. The appeal site forms part of the former rear garden associated with No 1a [address] and comprises a driveway and some scrub. Although the appeal site has already been subdivided by high level fencing and walls, it contributes to the spacious, verdant character of this portion of [address].

The appellant suggests that the proposal would be innovative and make effective use of a constrained site, through several design features including the first-floor overhang and the addition of dormers. Whilst these features would allow for the proposal to have improved functionality, such as parking, increased floor space and head height, the overall composition would appear forced and unbalanced. The overhand would intersect awkwardly with the stepped front façade and roof whilst the dormers would add clutter, with no clear external purpose. Despite the use of brick and cladding, due to its position forward of the prevailing building lines the flank elevations would appear harsh, to the detriment of the proposal’s overall appearance.

The height of the proposal would be less than the surrounding dwellings and it would be set in from the side boundaries to prevent terracing. The Rochford District Council Supplementary Planning Document 2: [name] (January

(SPD2) acknowledges that frontages less than 9.25 metres may be acceptable, so long as the frontage and form is compatible with the form and character of the area. In this case, the proposal would fill the majority of the width of the appeal site, harmfully reducing the gap between the existing properties.

Moreover, due to its position significantly in front of No 43 and moderately in front of No 45, the proposal would appear dominant within the street scene. Despite, the opportunities for additional landscaping, when considering the visual mass of the proposal and lack of separation in combination, the appeal site would appear cramped, significantly reducing the spaciousness of the area.

As such, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy CP1 of the Rochford District Council Core Strategy (December 2011) (CS) and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Rochford District Council Development Management Plan (December 2014) (DMP) where, amongst other things, collectively they seek to ensure that development is of a high-quality design and positively relates to the character of the area.

There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) where it requires that development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout and is sympathetic to local character.

The appeal site is perpendicular to No [address] running along the entire length of its western boundary. A boundary fence and driveway currently separate the two properties, with the west facing habitable rooms of No 45a benefitting from an open outlook across the appeal site, towards the flank elevation of No 43, some distance away.

Whilst the proposal would be subordinate in scale when compared to the surrounding dwellings with a gabled roof and stepped frontage, it would introduce a substantial mass in close proximity to the boundary. Despite the minimal stagger, the proposal would extend across much of the western elevation and protrude significantly above the existing boundary fence, appearing dominant when viewed from No 45a. Although the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy, due to its position adjacent the boundary and its overall scale, the proposal would have an enclosing effect, ultimately harming the open, verdant outlook currently afforded to the occupiers of No 45a.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the residents of No [address], with regard to outlook. The proposal would conflict with Policy DM1 of the DMP where it requires development to have a positive relationship with existing and nearby buildings, promoting visual amenity. It would also fail to accord with the Framework, which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Similarly, there would be conflict with the [name] (2018) and SPD2 where they seek to ensure that development is not unduly obtrusive to the outlook of surrounding development.

The Council can only demonstrate a 1.97 year housing land supply. Therefore, Framework paragraph 11d is engaged.

The appellant considers that the site comprises previously developed land (PDL). However, the definition of PDL in the Framework specifically excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens. As the site once formed part of the garden of a neighbouring dwelling and is within a built-up area, I do not agree that the site is PDL.

The Framework requires that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area; are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; are sympathetic to local character; and optimise the potential of a site and sustain an appropriate amount of development. The proposal would develop a large proportion of the appeal site with an incongruous dwelling and, as I have found above, would appear cramped, and significantly detract from the open, verdant character of the area.

Further, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the residents of No [address] with regard to outlook. This would be in conflict with the Framework where it requires development to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and CS Policy CP1 and [name] DM1 and DM3 and the Framework should be given significant weight in this appeal.

Nevertheless, the Framework seeks to boost the housing supply and highlights the important contribution small sites can make. This is particularly relevant in this district with a substantial area is designated as Green Belt. The proposal would provide an additional dwelling, including parking and outdoor amenity space in an accessible location, that could be delivered relatively quickly. The proposal would contribute towards the housing shortfall; however, one additional house would make little difference to the overall supply of housing.

Short term employment would be provided during the construction and in the long term the future occupiers would benefit the local economy and community by helping to sustain the vitality and viability of the existing settlement. However, the social and economic benefits of one additional dwelling would be modest. Therefore, the benefits attract moderate weight.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the development the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the residents of No [address] would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Hence, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Overall, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions in the Framework and the benefits of the proposal, which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.