Appeal 6002963

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed dwelling on the character and appearance of the area; and, • Whether the proposed dwelling would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers.

The appeal site comprises unused land enclosed by timber fencing and is located to the rear of 9 The Croft. The site fronts [address], a residential cul-de-sac formed primarily of two-storey dwellings with a cluster of bungalows to the immediate south of the appeal site. Existing properties are of traditional appearance and character. Landscaping is mature and the street scene has a pleasant, verdant feel.

The proposed two-storey dwelling, described as having a contemporary appearance, consists of a rectangular box with a primarily glazed front elevation and would be sited alongside the garage serving no [address]. It’s width, height and depth would introduce significant built form on to a relatively tight plot. The design of the dwelling would be significantly at odds with the appearance of surrounding properties in terms of its form, height and materials and would appear incongruous alongside the traditional bungalows and as an incoherent intrusion into the street scene as a consequence.

The dwelling would fill the width of the plot and would extend significantly further forward than the detached double garage alongside. The first floor would over-sail the ground floor, extending its forward projection. The dwelling would be taller than the adjacent garage, and as a consequence of its flat roof, the absence of fenestration on flank elevations and its cramped juxtaposition, would appear as an unduly bulky and discordant feature.

The property would be located on the outside of a bend in the road and be prominent in views along [address], particularly from the east. Within such a prominent position, the size, massing and form of the proposal would not be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area, and the proposed dwelling would look out of place, failing to integrate into the pattern, character or grain of the existing street. The appellant’s suggested condition requiring a landscaping scheme would not overcome this harm.

Accordingly, the proposals conflict with Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Core Strategy (2013) (BDCS) and Development Management Policy 1 of the Blaby District Local Plan Delivery DPD (2019) (BDLPD) which, amongst other things, require new development to improve the character and quality of an area, demonstrate how they have taken account of local patterns of development and be sympathetic to their surroundings. Given the importance to achieving high quality design embodied in Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give significant weight to this conflict with the development plan.

The proposed dwelling would provide for a bedroom and bathroom at ground floor and a kitchen/lounge and storeroom doubling as the access to the WC, at first floor. The front elevation of the upper floor would be primarily glazed, the WC would include a rear facing window and the kitchen/lounge would be provided with rooflights. At ground floor, a primarily glazed front elevation would provide light to the hall and bathroom. The bedroom would be served by rear facing glazing, which is presumably also full height, although the elevation plans I have been provided with show this obscured by the boundary fencing. The internal room sizes would accord with the [name].

Externally, as the frontage would be open to the street, the only private amenity space would be a small garden to the rear, accessed via the bedroom and enclosed by 2m high fencing. This garden would measure less than 6 sqm and due to its enclosure would feel an oppressive and cramped space. It would receive little sunlight as a consequence of being overshadowed by the proposed dwelling, the neighbouring garage and the trees within neighbouring gardens, depending on the time of day. I find accordingly that this space would be unsuitable as the sole private amenity space serving the dwelling.

Given this enclosure of the rear garden, natural light entering the bedroom, which would rely solely on the rear facing windows for daylight, would be limited. Outlook from the bedroom would also be significantly impacted by the fencing positioned in close proximity to the rear elevation. Internally, the bedroom would consequently feel an unduly oppressive and gloomy space and fail to provide adequate living standards for future occupiers.

The first-floor layout would allow for outlook to the front from the lounge windows which would also provide borrowed light to the kitchen beyond, supplemented by the proposed rooflights and an adequate standard of amenity would be provided. Overall, however, the lack of adequate outdoor amenity space and poor outlook and light for the ground floor bedroom represent unsuitable living conditions for future occupiers of the dwelling. Accordingly, the proposals would fail to meet the requirements of Development Management Policy 1 (DM1) of the BDLPD which requires development to ensure appropriate amenity for future occupiers of development. I attribute significant weight to this conflict with the development plan. The proposals would also conflict with the Framework which seeks healthy living conditions in new homes with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The appeal proposals would provide one additional dwelling within [site address] ; part of the Principal Urban Area of Leicester. They would, therefore, be in accordance with the locational requirements of Policies CS1 and CS5 of the BDCS. The Framework recognises the contribution that small sites can make to meeting the housing requirement for an area, although one dwelling would make just a minor contribution to the overall supply of housing. I therefore attribute this benefit moderate weight.

The council is not granting sufficient planning permissions to meet the demand for self and custom-build housing and suggests a shortfall of over 90 plots exists. The provision of one additional self-build dwelling would contribute to meeting this shortfall. Development Management Policy 10 (DM10) of the BDLPD encourages the delivery of self and custom-build housing in suitable locations which would include [site address] .

The appellant has provided a [name] (UU) which, it is suggested, would secure the delivery of the dwelling as a self-build property. I note however, that whilst the front cover of the UU has been dated, this is not the case on page 2 where it remains undated. Clause 13.1 of the UU states that the provisions of the Deed shall not have any effect until the document has been dated. This, together with the discrepancies between land ownership declarations made on the application forms and within the UU, provide an element of uncertainty as to the enforceability of the UU. In these circumstances, I give the contribution of the proposals to the supply of self-build dwellings reduced weight.

The appellant advises that the proposed dwelling would be constructed as a zero-carbon dwelling using modern methods of construction utilising factory-based manufacturing to improve efficiency, quality and sustainability. Such technologies would allow the proposals to contribute towards decarbonisation objectives and allow for quicker assembly and construction on-site. I attribute positive weight to these benefits which would contribute towards the objectives of Policy CS21. The weight is again reduced, however, given the means of securing the benefits are proposed as obligations within the UU which, for the reasons outlined above, has uncertainty over its enforceability.

In addition, there would also be a time-limited benefit to the local economy during the construction phase, and additional expenditure in local services and facilities following occupation. Due to the limitations of the size of the development and the efficient construction methods proposed, I give only limited weight to these benefits.

Policy CS2 of the BDCS supports innovative design that is appropriate in its context. It has been suggested that the proposed dwelling constitutes an innovative approach to design. However, I do not accept that a dwelling which would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupants, could be considered innovative in its design. I accordingly give very limited weight to this matter in support of the proposals.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with Policy CS2 of the BDCS and Policy DM1 of the BDLPD. These policies are consistent with the Framework in so far as it seeks well-designed places which are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, and new homes with acceptable living conditions. Therefore, the conflict with Policies CS2 and DM1 should be given significant weight in this appeal.

The council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date. The balance in paragraph 11d) of the Framework is therefore engaged.

None of the policies listed in footnote 7 apply to the appeal site and do not therefore provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Paragraph 11 d) ii) must therefore be applied.

Paragraph 11 d) ii) states planning 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 as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for among other things, securing well-designed places.

The council suggests it can evidence only a 2.45-year housing land supply. This falls significantly below the requirements of the Framework which seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. I give the benefits of delivering one additional dwelling moderate weight given this significant shortfall.

[name] recognise the appellant’s intention to provide a self-build, zero-carbon dwelling, given my concerns regarding the enforceability of the UU, I cannot be sure these benefits would be delivered, and I therefore give these matters little weight.

In my judgment, therefore, the adverse impacts of the appeal proposals on the character and appearance of the area and in failing to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposals would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers. The proposals conflict with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.