Appeal 6002995

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s appeal submissions include proposed plans that were originally provided with the planning application and amended plans subsequently submitted prior to its determination. The appellant and the Council have confirmed that the application was determined on the basis of the amended plans1, and I have dealt with the appeal on the same basis.

The proposed development includes development that does not form part of the Council’s reasons for refusal, nor does the Council identify any conflict with the development plan in relation to these elements. Following my site visit I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the focus of my assessment is the proposed new building that would host the five flats.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of occupants of the neighbouring property at [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site comprises a detached two-storey property subdivided into two flats and sited towards the front of a substantial plot, set back from and facing 1 Drawing refs 00/07A, 00/07B, 00/08A, 00/10A, 00/11A, 00/12A and [address]. The existing property occupies a prominent position, situated to the edge of built development within a predominantly residential area. Its front elevation is further forward than the pair of adjacent two-storey semi-detached properties, whilst the building line of other properties on the same side of the road are also staggered and set back in relation to [address]. The appeal site also features a detached garage to the rear of the property and a small garden area, with a larger garden area beyond, extending to the boundaries of adjacent housing. The existing property appears to have been previously extended to the side and rear, and its main ridgeline runs parallel to [address], with a modest gable feature to the front roof slope. Land and buildings associated with a compound for the adjacent golf course lie beyond the southern boundary of the appeal site, and the [name] occupies a corner position directly opposite.

There are variations in the scale and form of residential properties in the immediate area of the appeal site on [address], and in the surrounding area on [address], [address] and Scholes Park Road. These include a mix of detached and semi-detached, single and two-storey dwellings, generally featuring the use of brick or render materials. The properties in this part of [address] and in the surrounding area also predominantly front the roads with pitched or hipped roofs and their ridgelines running parallel to the highway. Whilst there are variations in the design of housing, including smaller gable features within the main roofs, their layout, general scale and roof forms contribute to the local character and an established pattern of development in the area.

In this context, I have had regard to the Scarborough Borough Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (February 2022). Amongst other things, this aims for development to achieve good design and respond positively to the characteristics of the site and surrounding area. In addition, where a strong local vernacular exists, this should be respected and reflected in the design, albeit not used to stifle high-quality contemporary design solutions that make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

The development proposes a building with a considerably larger footprint and depth than the existing property, constructed in a similar position on the site. It would be set back slightly further from [address] than the existing property, with the additional bulk of the building constructed beyond the line of its existing rear elevation. The eaves and ridge heights of the development would be higher than those of the existing property, which in combination with the increased depth, would result in a substantial sized building. Whilst the development would remain set back from and face the highway, it would feature a shallower pitched roof with its ridgeline running from the front to the rear elevation and a wide gable end to its frontage. Due to the prominent location and the staggered building line with adjacent housing, the scale of the proposed development, including the depth and expanse of the side elevations, would be clearly visible from [address].

Whilst there are some examples, the use of decorative timber detailing is not prevalent in the area. This detailing within the development would appear at odds with the proposed form, balconies and fenestration of the front elevation. Furthermore, the orientation of the ridgeline, shallower roof pitch and gable end frontage, and what appear to be significantly overhanging eaves, are not typical features of development in the vicinity. In combination, these elements of the design would result in mixed architectural details and development that would not reflect the local character of the area or respond positively to the local context.

Despite some subservience with the rear section of the new building and use of suitable materials, due to its prominent location, the overall scale, and its mixed design features, the development would appear as a notable and discordant addition in the street scene. This would include in views travelling along [address] in both directions, as well as from [address]. Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful visual impact that would be out of character with the scale and form of development in the surrounding area. The development would not result in high quality design that would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other development, including the [name] directly opposite the appeal site and a three-storey residential development situated further along [address]. Whilst these are relatively large buildings, they are materially different to the proposed development in terms of their design and site context. The hotel is a two-storey building that occupies a prominent corner position with surrounding car park and external space. It has a different use and function to housing development in the area. It fronts [address] with its main ridge parallel to the road with a gable feature, as well as what appears to be a later subservient side addition with a pitched roof and gable facing the road. Its side elevation faces [address] and comprises the side gable end of the main section and a pitched roof, whilst rear pitched roofs are also evident. Overall, this comprises a relatively traditional design that reflects the prevailing layout and roof form characteristics of development in the area.

The three-storey development is relatively large in scale, situated between smaller housing and fronting the highway. Whilst it is an example of a larger and more contemporary design in the area, I do not know the circumstances in which that or other development has taken place. I do not find these to be directly comparable with the proposed development, and the presence of these do not justify the harm that would arise from the development on the appeal site.

I also note the appellant’s references to a previous appeal decision2 on the site, although the full details of that development are not before me. Whilst there may have been revisions from that appeal scheme, including the removal of housing to the rear of the site, I am unable to determine if the circumstances are directly comparable to the proposed development before me to weigh in favour of the appeal. In any event, I have assessed the proposed development on its merits and on the basis of the information before me.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unduly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy DEC1 of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan (July 2017) (the SBLP). Amongst other things, this policy aims for proposals to achieve good design, reflect the local environment and respond positively to the local context. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which aims to ensure developments add to the overall quality of the area, are visually attractive, are sympathetic to local character and maintain a strong sense of place.

Whilst there is a close boarded fence between the rear gardens of the appeal site and the adjacent property at [address], the boundary between the side 2 Appeal ref: APP/U2750/W/24/3358279 elevations of the two properties, their front gardens and driveways is largely open at present. The driveways of both properties extend past their side elevations, with a detached garage to No [address] to the side boundary beyond its rear elevation. An existing first floor kitchen window is located within the side elevation of the appeal property facing towards the frontage of No 147. There is a modest window at ground floor level in the side elevation of No 147, with a smaller window that appeared to be obscurely glazed and a larger window above at first floor level. There is limited information before me of which rooms in No 147 these windows relate to, although the ground floor window appears to serve a kitchen. Due to the open arrangement to its front and side areas, the rear garden of No 147 appears to be the more private external amenity space for that property.

The proposed development would result in a much larger building on the site in comparison to the existing property, sited approximately 3 metres from the boundary with No 147 at its closest following the amendments submitted during the application. The side elevation facing No 147 would have two small windows serving an en-suite and a bathroom respectively, and a modest sized window serving a bedroom at both ground and first floor level. The proposed sections of wall and fence to the side boundary shown on the submitted plans would mitigate potential adverse impacts of overlooking between the properties at ground floor level. This and the proposed new hedging to parts of the boundary would also help to reduce potential effects on the occupants of No 147 of additional activity, vehicles and associated disturbance from the proposed development.

The siting of the proposed development off the boundary, and the intervening garage and driveway areas between the side of the new building and No 147, would provide some separation between the two sites. Notwithstanding my findings in respect of character and appearance, the proposed pitched roof would reduce some of the bulk of the development closer to the side boundary. Due to the increased scale of the proposed development in comparison to the existing building, there would be a greater visual impact for occupants of No 147. However, this would be more notable when viewed from the driveway and more open areas to the side and front where there is already some impact from the existing building. Views from the front windows of No 147 towards the development would also be at an oblique angle and over the existing driveways, similar to the existing arrangement. Consequently, I am not satisfied it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the development would be significantly overbearing and result in unacceptable effects on outlook for occupants of No 147.

Furthermore, having regard to the layout and separation, intervening driveway areas and the limited information on the areas served by the windows of No 147, I am not persuaded that there would be significant or unacceptable impacts of overlooking from the proposed first floor bedroom window and loss of privacy for the occupants of No 147. In addition, the balcony areas to the front elevation would be enclosed to their sides and face directly over the front forecourt of the proposed development. Due to the orientation of the proposed development and its siting off the side boundary, views towards the front garden of No 147 from these areas would be oblique. Therefore, there would not be significant or unacceptable effects from overlooking in this respect.

Having regard to the proposed layout, boundary treatments, separation between the neighbouring properties, and the positioning and enclosed nature of the allocated rear garden areas, I have no compelling evidence to indicate that the proposed development would give rise to significant or unacceptable levels of noise, disturbance or other sources of pollution from increased activity at the site.

For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the proposed development would result in unacceptable effects on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property at No 147, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. The proposed development therefore accords with Policy DEC4 of the SBLP. Amongst other things, this policy aims to ensure that existing and future occupants of land and buildings are provided with a good standard of amenity, and proposals should not give rise to unacceptable impacts of overbearing impact, overlooking and loss of privacy.

The appellant references recent residential development in [address], [address] and on the outskirts of Scalby Village. I have no further detail of such development, and it has not been explained how these are relevant to the proposed development before me. Whilst there are variations in residential development in the wider area, my assessment has been made on the site-specific circumstances of the proposed development in this location. These references do not alter my conclusion in respect of character and appearance.

Where the proposed development has been found to be acceptable in other respects, including its location, access and parking provision, these are neutral matters and do not weigh in favour of the development.

I am aware from another recent appeal case in the area that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites in the area covered by the SBLP, with a figure quoted of 2.7 years of housing supply. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework explains that in these circumstances, 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 taken as a whole. Notwithstanding the appellant’s references to Planning Policy Statement 3, I have had regard to the Framework’s economic, social and environmental objectives in this context.

The proposal would make a positive contribution to housing supply, including making more efficient use of the site within a sustainable location, to which I give moderate weight. There would also be some short-term economic benefits during the construction period, as well as additional revenue from Council Tax. Given the scale of development, I afford limited weight to these.

The adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. As such, the appeal scheme does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework.

Notwithstanding my findings in respect of living conditions, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole, and 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, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.