Appeal 6002967

The appeal is dismissed.

My assessment is based on the above description of development and as provided on the application form as there is no record that the appellant has agreed to the different description given on the Council’s decision notice. The appeal site address in the header is from the Council’s decision notice as it is more accurate than the address given on the application form.

The application leading to this appeal sought the grant of outline planning permission and also sought approval for details of access, appearance, layout and scale. I have assessed the appeal on this basis and having regard to the details as shown on the submitted plans.

Reference is made by both main parties to the draft version of a revised National Planning Policy Framework. This is currently subject to a consultation exercise. The draft document does not constitute national planning policy and its contents may change before it is formally published. As such, the draft National Planning Policy Framework document attracts very little weight in my assessment.

Having regard to the Council’s refusal reasons and submissions, the main issue is whether the development would provide a suitable living environment having regard to outlook, access to light, privacy and the amount of useable floor space.

A public house that used to be on the appeal site has been demolished resulting in an empty space between 13 and 17 St. [address]. The proposed development would include a new 2 storey building facing onto the highway. A pedestrian walkway from the street and through the front building would allow access to a line of 2 storey dwellings to the rear. The 5 units numbered 3 to 7 on the plans would all be single aspect dwellings with front windows and doors facing the side elevation of 13 St. [address] (No 13).

The flank wall of No 13 runs along the full depth of the site, although it drops down in height from the front towards the rear of the plot. The appeal site is narrow and so the front elevations of units 3 to [address] to No 13’s flank elevation. The front windows would look out onto a courtyard that could contain new trees and other planting. However, this would be a fairly small outdoor area enclosed by the side wall of No 13 and the proposed dwellings . Views from the ground floor windows in units 3 to 7 would be dominated by the blank side wall of No 13, which would appear overbearing due to its proximity and height. This would cause a significant detriment to the quality of the living accommodation given that these units would only have windows on their front elevations.

The views from the single ground floor window to unit 3 would be the most restricted as this would face the highest part of No 13’s flank wall and it would also be near to the rear wall of the proposed unit 2. The ground floor windows to units 4 to 7 would provide a wider outlook with some sight of the sky. The front window to unit 5 would look directly out onto a proposed bin store, although this is likely to be fairly low in height so as to not significantly curtail outlook. However, the most obvious and direct views from all of the ground floor windows in units 3 to 7 would be of the uninteresting side wall of No 13. I am unconvinced that such views would be significantly enhanced through new planting.

Units 1, 2, 8 and 9 would all have an acceptable outlook as their windows would not face into the courtyard. However, there would be a poor quality outlook from 5 of the 9 units proposed. Living conditions – access to light.

The front elevations of units 3 to 7 would face towards the south and so the windows to these dwellings would allow direct sunlight into their interiors. However, this would only occur during times of the year when the sun is high enough in the sky to appear over the flank wall of No 13. No daylight and sunlight assessment has been provided but it seems likely that only a limited level of sunlight would ever reach the front of unit 3 due to the overshadowing effect of No 13 and the proposed unit 2. Also, it is likely that single aspect dwellings that face onto a small and enclosed courtyard would lead to gloomy ground floor accommodation in units 3 to 7, particularly towards the back part of the houses. Living conditions – privacy.

The ground floor windows in the proposed units 1 and 2 would face directly onto St. [address]. The front elevations of these units would be immediately adjacent to the pavement and so people passing by would have clear views into the ground floor accommodation. This relationship of windows close to pavements is not uncommon in the locality and it would be unlikely that people would congregate outside units 1 and 2. Even so, the ground floor accommodation to these units would not feel private due to the windows being immediately next to the pavement.

Residents and visitors to the proposed development behind units 1 and [address] past ground floor windows in units 3 to 8. The proposed walkway would be near to these windows, although generally there would be a small degree of separation. Planting could be provided in front of most of the dwellings to ensure pedestrians would not walk or stand immediately outside windows, so ensuring a reasonable degree of privacy. However, the plans indicate the walkway would be immediately adjacent to the ground floor window to unit 3. Also, this dwelling would be positioned so that anyone going to and from units 4 through to [address] in close proximity to its ground floor window. As such, the position of the walkway would compromise the privacy to unit 3’s ground floor accommodation.

The appellant suggests a planning condition could be imposed to secure partial obscure glazing to ground floor windows and so prevent views into the interior of the dwellings. However, such glazing would also significantly restrict outlook from the ground floor of the dwellings and so it would be unreasonable to impose such a planning condition. Living conditions – amount of useable space.

The appellant accepts the Council’s contention that each of the proposed units would provide less than the minimum internal floor space as set out in the nationally described space standards. However, I am taken to no development plan policy that requires compliance with these standards. Therefore, the substandard internal floor areas is not fully determinative on the issue as to whether the units would provide sufficient internal space.

Even so, each of the units would be modest in size and would provide a single bedroom with open plan living and kitchen space. Apart from kitchen and bathroom fittings, the plans fail to show how furniture could be accommodated in the houses. The bedrooms at first floor level would all be fairly small and doors to connecting shower rooms and storage areas are shown to open out into the rooms. As such, it is difficult to envisage how these rooms would be large enough to accommodate a bed as well as suitable circulation space. Unit 2 would be an exception as the bedroom is shown to be on the ground floor and where there would be sufficient space for typical bedroom furniture. Nonetheless, the submitted information indicates the living accommodation for the other units would feel cramped with inadequate space to allow for comfortable living.

The courtyard would provide a shared outdoor area for residents of the development. However, this would be modest in size with limited scope for functional use as it would also be used for circulation and storage of waste bins. Also, it would not be a private space but overlooked by windows in the proposed houses. As such, the courtyard would not address the shortcomings in terms of the amount of internal space within each of the units. Living conditions – other issues and overall summary.

The Council is concerned the access to the rear part of the development would be constrained and dark and so it would feel unsafe. However, a planning condition could be imposed to secure an appropriate external lighting scheme. Moreover, there would be a door on the street entrance that would provide a sense of security for residents. As such, I am satisfied the development would feel safe to use.

Nevertheless, I find the scheme would provide an unacceptable outlook from units 3 to 7 due to these dwellings being single aspect and the enclosed nature of the courtyard. For the same reasons, the rear part of these units would be gloomy. The ground floor of units 1, 2 and 3 would not feel private due to the proximity of windows to the pavement and the walkway. These shortcomings would be exacerbated as the units would be modest in size and they would feel cramped. The poor design aspects of the development could not be overcome through the imposition of planning conditions as suggested.

Therefore, I conclude the development would not provide acceptable living conditions when having regard to the issues of outlook, access to light, privacy and internal floorspace. In these respects, it would not accord with policies D2 and D25 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan 2019 (the LP). These policies seek to ensure development is of a high quality design that is enjoyable to use and that provides acceptable living conditions.

The appellant contends it would be unreasonable to expect new housing within a town centre location to provide the standard of living conditions that may be typical in suburban areas given the density of surrounding buildings. However, the referred to LP policies relate to all development and they set a requirement for high quality design on all sites. Apart from the LP policies, I am referred to no Council design guidance document to support its concerns. Nonetheless, I find the deficiencies within the development would be so significant to bring the proposal into conflict with the LP policies, even when considering the town centre location of the site. In particular, the living environment in unit 3 would be especially poor.

The appellant also suggests the development would provide a better living environment than the property that previously existed on the plot as it includes outdoor amenity space. However, it is unclear whether the former pub provided permanent residential accommodation and in any event the building is now demolished. Therefore, the suggestion fails to influence my findings on this issue. Other considerations and planning balance.

I have found the development would not accord with the LP when read as a whole. It follows to consider whether other factors justify allowing the appeal contrary to

The Council accepts that it is unable to demonstrate 5 years’ worth of housing land supply as required under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council says it can show a supply of sites to meet 4.17 years’ worth of housing need. The appellant refers to appeal decision reference number APP/E3335/W/25/3369557 in support of their case that the supply of sites is significantly less. However, it would seem that this appeal does not relate to a site in the Sedgemoor area. Therefore, it is unclear whether the previous appeal Inspector’s findings on housing supply is applicable to this case.

In any event, it is evident that a situation as described in footnote 8 of the Framework applies in terms of the supply of deliverable housing sites. It follows that paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. This states that planning permission should be granted unless the circumstances in either sub-paragraphs 11(d)(i) or 11(d)(ii) exist. There is no strong reason to refuse the appeal development on grounds that relate to the Framework’s policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance. Accordingly, sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) is not engaged. Sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) requires the benefits of allowing the development to be considered against the adverse impacts of the scheme in light of the Framework’s policies when read as a whole.

All of the units would be similar in size and nature and there is no evidence before me to indicate a particular local need for smaller residences. Also, the proposal would add only 9 dwellings to the housing stock. Even so, there is a notable benefit to the scheme in helping to address the shortfall in housing land supply.

The proposed houses would be near to a broad range of facilities within the town centre including public transport links. As such, the scheme would promote sustainable modes of travel. Also, it is likely residents would support the vitality and vibrancy of the town centre and local businesses. The development would also create short term construction employment. These benefits also add support for allowing the appeal.

The creation of a courtyard would allow for potential new planting on the site. However, this is likely to be restricted due to the confined nature of the courtyard and the need for circulation and waste storage space. Therefore, any biodiversity enhancement is likely to be very limited.

The appellant suggests the site represents previously developed land even though it has been cleared of buildings. If accepted, the proposal would benefit from the support at paragraph 125(c) for using suitable brownfield land within settlements for new homes. In any event, it would represent the development of under-utilised land to help meet the identified needs for housing as advocated under sub-paragraph 125(d) of the Framework. Again, these are benefits to the scheme.

I am referred by the appellant to paragraph 129 of the Framework, which looks for planning decisions to support development that makes efficient use of land. The introduction of 9 units on the site would represent an effective use of the plot in line with paragraph 129 and it would avoid housing built at low densities as resisted under paragraph 130 of the Framework. However, sub-paragraph 129(e) of the Framework emphasises the importance of securing well-designed development when looking to achieve appropriate building densities. Also, sub-paragraph 130(c) is only supportive of taking a flexible approach in applying policies on daylight and sunlight if a scheme would provide acceptable living standards. In this case, I have already found the proposal would not be well-designed as it would provide inadequate living conditions. Therefore, paragraphs 129 and 130 when considered as a whole do not support a decision to grant planning permission.

The plot lies within Bridgwater Central Area and Dock Conservation Area (the CA). Local streets are characterised by rows of buildings of various ages on the edge of pavements. The significance of the CA seems to derive at least partly from the prominence, age and architectural interest of many of these buildings. The vacant appeal site forms a gap within the line of buildings and it allows views of the uninteresting flank elevations of 13 and 17 St. [address]. Therefore, it currently detracts from the qualities of the CA.

The proposed front building would be of sympathetic design and proportions to nearby properties. Also, it would screen a large part of the side elevations to the neighbouring buildings. The houses to the rear of the plot would be of a modern appearance that fails to meaningfully reflect the locality but these would not be seen from the street due to the screening effect of the attractive front building. Consequently, the development would lead to an enhancement in the appearance of the site and the character and appearance of the CA. The benefits in these regards add significant weight in support of allowing the appeal.

The submissions indicate the property at 14 St. [address] and opposite the appeal site is a listed building. Its significance appears to lie with its age and architectural interest. The front of the proposed development would be seen in the same views as the listed building and so it would affect its setting. However, the development would not obstruct sight of the front elevation of 14 St. [address] and so its significance would be unaffected by the proposal. Acceptability in these respects is a neutral factor in my overall assessment.

In summary, there are a number of benefits to the proposal that attract considerable weight. However, paragraph 131 of the Framework highlights the creation of high quality buildings and places as being a fundamental aim of the planning process. It also states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 135(f) of the Framework promotes the delivery of developments with a high standard of amenity for future users. The proposal would fail in these respects and so it would not be well-designed. In such circumstances, paragraph 139 of the Framework indicates permission should be refused.

Therefore, whilst noting its benefits, I find the failure of the development to provide acceptable living conditions for future residents to be the overriding factor. The adverse impacts of allowing the scheme with poor living conditions for a range of reasons would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, even when considered altogether. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development and towards granting permission as set out at paragraph 11(d) of the Framework does not apply. Therefore, I find insufficient justification to grant planning permission contrary to LP policies.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.