Appeal 6003017

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 7), with particular regard to the effect on daylight, sunlight, privacy, and outlook; • Whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants of the property, with regard to external space; and • Whether the development would provide sufficient parking for the appeal proposal and for the occupants of No 7.

As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted a Daylight and [name]. Although this is new information and represents a change to what was considered by the Council at the application stage, it was available to the Council at the appeal and they have provided comments on it. Consequently, having regard to the relevant caselaw, no party would be prejudiced if I were to take this information into account in my decision.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land on the corner of [address] and [address]. From the evidence before me, it previously formed part of the garden to the properties either side but it has since been covered in gravel and used for informal parking. The boundaries are currently formed of a close boarded fence along the back of the pavement and gravel boards on the boundaries with No 7 and with [site address] .

The site lies within a residential area characterised by semi-detached houses which have a consistent design and scale with only small varieties in materials, although some have been extended. The houses are also set back from the road behind front gardens which are relatively similar in depth. Other corners on the estate have a pair of semi-detached houses set to turn the corner, providing a greater set-back from the road but retaining the characteristics of the other houses. The building lines follow the curvature of the roads. The consistency in the appearance and scale of the houses, the setback from the road, and the position of the houses on the other corner plots, sets a definable character and contributes positively to the pleasant character and appearance of the area.

The appeal proposes the erection of a single building providing five flats, two on the ground floor, two at first floor and one in the roof space. Although the proposal would have a pitched roof and a similar width to the other pairs of semi-detached houses around the site it would have a greater depth and would include a substantial sized single storey, flat roofed, section on the side. The proposed building would also be built directly on the boundary of the site with No 7.

Moreover, although the building would follow the line of No 7, and the adjoining neighbour, the proposal would be forward of the building line on [address], which currently follows the curve of the road. It would also not follow the curvature of [address] and would be closer to the road than any of the other houses immediately around the site.

Due to proposing five flats the scheme would also require a parking area at the rear as well as parking at the front, on [address]. The amount of parking and its position at the front and rear of the building would not reflect the layout of the estate, including the other corner plots, where parking is predominately on-street or at the front. Although the building to plot ratio would be less than other houses on the estate, taken together the above issues would result in a development that is cramped and overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the layout and form of the estate.

Due to the corner location the building would also be visually prominent. The design, especially the size and shape of the windows and the solid to void ratio, would not reflect the appearance of the other dwellings in the area, even if the materials were to match and even though it is not within a Conservation Area. Moreover, to ensure that the ridge line is no higher than No 7 the roof pitch would be shallower. For these reasons, the building would appear starkly different. Even though the current appearance of the site, as a gravelled parking area, is not enhancing the area it is also not significantly harmful. The current appearance of the site would not justify the harm that would result from the appeal proposal.

Overall, the design, scale and massing of the proposal would result in a development that would appear cramped and overdevelopment of the site, visually out of context with the existing houses. For the above reasons, the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area contrary to the requirements of Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 (the SWDP) which seeks to ensure that all development is of a high quality, integrates effectively with its surroundings, complements the character of the area, that the siting and layout reflects the characteristics of the site, responds to surrounding buildings, has a scale, height and massing that is appropriate to the setting of the site, and has detailing that is appropriate to its context.

For the same reasons, the proposal would also fail to comply with the guidance set out in the [name] Planning Document (the [name]) which encourages a higher standard of design, seeks to improve the overall quality of the built environment, enhance local character and distinctiveness, requires development to respond sensitively to surrounding building styles, and to local character.

The appeal site is between [address] and [site address] . Both existing properties have windows in the side elevations facing towards the site. The appeal building would be built on the boundary of the site, next to No 7. It would not be provided with a gap of similar distance to the gaps between the existing houses, including the gap between 14 and [address] which the appellant has drawn my attention to. Although the other houses on the estate have side windows close to the neighbouring properties this is as a result of the design of the estate, rather than a proposed new building.

From the evidence before me the ground floor window in the side of No 7 serves as the only window to the kitchen and the only source of light and outlook to this habitable room. The appellant’s Daylight and [name] concludes that the windows to No 7 would continue to have appropriate levels of both daylight and sunlight. However, the study does not assess the window in the side elevation. Although the windows in the rear of No 7, and all the windows to [site address] , would continue to have sufficient daylight and sunlight, the ground floor window in the side of No 7 would be significantly adversely affected by the proposed building due to how close the proposal would be to this window. Even without a formal assessment of either the 25-degree or 45-degree tests it is clear that the proposal would be harmful to the levels of daylight and sunlight to this existing window.

Moreover, the outlook from this window, would be of the proposed building, which would sit directly on the boundary of the site and, therefore, very close to the existing window.

The proposed building would also have windows to habitable rooms in the ground floor side elevation, facing towards the existing window in No 7. As these windows would not be the only ones to the proposed living space and a window is proposed in the rear elevation, it would be possible to impose a condition that the side elevation windows are obscure glazed and unopenable to ensure that there would not be unacceptable harmful effects on the privacy of the occupants of No 7.

Nevertheless, given the proximity of the proposal to the habitable room window in the side of No 7, the living conditions of the occupants of that property would be harmed as a result of the development. That the appellant owns both the appeal site and No 7 would not justify harming the living conditions of the occupants of the existing dwelling.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 7), with particular regard to the effect on daylight, sunlight, and outlook. It would, therefore, be contrary to the requirements of Policy SWDP 21 of the SWDP which, amongst other matters, requires development to provide adequate levels of privacy, outlook, sunlight, and daylight, and also not be unduly overbearing.

The appeal proposal includes two areas of garden for the proposed five flats. A small area at the rear, between parking spaces, would provide greenery to and soften the appearance of the car park. The other area would be to the front of the building with a new hedge along the corner of [address] and [address] to provide this as private garden area.

However, the Council Highway Officer has advised that the hedge would need to be cut back or amended to provide appropriate visibility splays for both of the parking areas. This would either result in the hedge needing to be maintained at a height no greater than one metre or being set further into the site, therefore either reducing the privacy of this area or reducing the amount of garden area provided. Moreover, the hedge would take time to establish and, in the intervening period, the occupants of the proposed flats would not have any private garden space.

Furthermore, even if the area on the corner could be made private from the road it would still be overlooked by the bedroom windows to Flat 2 and these rooms would be overlooked by anyone using the garden area. These are not matters which increased planting or the provision of seating would resolve and any reconfiguration of the space, as suggested by the appellant, would result in a different development to that proposed within the appeal.

Although the provision of shared gardens for flats can be considered acceptable and there is no policy requirement, even within the [name], for flats to provide separate private gardens or balconies for each unit. Nevertheless, such shared gardens still need to be private and capable of being used for all the uses that a resident would expect within a garden.

Moreover, the supporting text to the [name] notes that outdoor space should be an integral part of the design rather than the space left over following all other aspects of the layout. The appeal scheme has been designed around maximising the size of the building and the number of flats to be provided and the need for car parking. Consequently, the garden spaces proposed do read as left-over spaces rather than forming an integral part of the design and layout.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to the distance from the appeal site to public open spaces. The identified spaces are within walking distance and would provide areas for walking, sitting out and general enjoyment of open areas. I also acknowledge that the internal floorspaces of the proposed flats exceed the [name]. However, there would still be a requirement for the development to provide secure and private garden area, even if this is communal.

For the above reasons, I find that the private amenity space for the flats would be unacceptable and would not result in appropriate living conditions of the future occupants of the property, with regard to external space, contrary to the requirements of Policy SWDP 21 of the SWDP which seeks to ensure that developments are high quality and provided with adequate privacy.

For the same reasons, the proposal would also fail to comply with the guidance set out in the [name] which requires all development to provide some form of private amenity space, whether it is communal or individual, accessible to its residents, which is safe and secure, should not be directly overlooked, and must be considered from the outset.

The appeal proposes seven parking spaces, three to the front on [address] and four in a car park at the rear of the building, accessed off [address]. The provision of parking directly off the road is consistent with other houses on the estate. The level of parking would be appropriate for the proposed development.

However, and notwithstanding the plans submitted by the appellant, to provide three spaces at the front of No 7 requires part of the appeal site which is also shown to be parking for the proposed scheme. Therefore, the proposed parking spaces on [address] would conflict with the parking layout for the three spaces at the front of No 7, required as part of the consent to convert that property to a house in multiple occupation.

The reduction in parking for No 7 would result in greater pressure for on-street parking and would conflict with the previous consent. It would not be reasonable for the occupants of Flat 1 to have a parking space associated with No 7 directly in front of their bedroom window. Moreover, the use of that space for No 7 would result in the loss of one space for the proposed development.

For the above reasons, the development would not provide sufficient parking for the appeal proposal and for the occupants of No 7 and would, therefore, be contrary to the requirements of Policy SWDP 21 of the SWDP which requires developments to incorporate the required parking facilities.

For the same reasons, the proposal would also fail to comply with the guidance set out in the [name] which seeks to ensure that adequate parking provision is made in all developments.

Policy SWDP 21 of the SWDP is the most relevant in considering the proposal. However, SWDP 21, as a design policy, does not seek to restrict new housing within the development boundary. It is, therefore, consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), as a whole. As such I have given the conflicts with SWDP 21, identified above, significant weight in this appeal and the proposed development would conflict with the development plan, as a whole.

The Council’s evidence shows that it is not able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The published figure, at 2.37 years supply, is a significant shortfall and Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies.

The proposal would accord with the Framework’s aim to boost the supply of housing. I also acknowledge there would be general social and economic benefits, as supported by the Framework, and energy efficiency measures. I afford significant weight to the provision of these new houses. Although, as only five flats are proposed, the benefit is limited when weighing the merits of the scheme. I therefore afford significant weight to the limited benefit the development would make to addressing the housing shortfall.

There would be adverse environmental impacts in terms of the design, scale and massing of the proposal, the harmful effect on the living conditions of both the future occupiers of the scheme and the occupiers of the neighbouring property, No 7, and the harmful effect on the provision of parking for No 7. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the design elements of the Framework, which amongst other matters seek to secure well-designed and attractive places, promote good design, maintain a strong sense of place, and create places with a high standard of living conditions for existing and future users. These environmental impacts are afforded significant weight.

Taken together, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which would outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.