Appeal 6003042

The appeal is dismissed.

I have amended the description of development to better reflect that which was included on the application form. Similarly, I have amended the site address to better reflect that on the application form, but I do not consider it necessary to provide a house number.

The proposal has been submitted in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Consequently, I have treated all details shown on the plans as illustrative.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether or not the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with regard to privacy; and • Whether or not the proposal would result in satisfactory access, manoeuvring and parking provision.

The appeal site is currently largely vacant although I observed there is a dilapidated garage close to the common boundary with 132 [site address] (No 132). Close boarded fencing has been erected along the frontage as well as other fencing on the appeal site.

The appeal site is located within an established residential area between 130 and 132 [site address] (Nos 130 and 132) . The area comprises a mix of housing types including terraced, semi-detached and detached bungalows as well as terraced and semi-detached two storey dwellings. Many properties are set back on their plots; some have parking and garden areas to the front and along much of the road a grassed verge separates the highway from the pedestrian footpath.

Even with the existing garage on the plot the appeal site appears largely undeveloped and although I accept that it no longer forms part of the same registered title as No 130, the depth of this property’s plot between its rear elevation and the common boundary with the appeal site is now very shallow and consequently the appeal site provides important spacing between Nos 130 and 132 which creates a sense of spaciousness and which makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The illustrative plans show that the proposed dwelling would be located very close to the common boundary with No 130. Given the limited depth of the rear garden and the corresponding proximity of the rear elevation of this neighbouring property this arrangement would appear unacceptably cramped on the site and the infilling of the appeal site would undermine the existing spacious character of the area which makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area. It follows that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the street scene and the character and appearance of the area and would not represent a high-quality design that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the key features of local character.

The appellant indicates that the proposal would mirror the bungalow placement at 144 [site address] (No 144). However that property is a semi-detached bungalow located on the corner of [site address] and [address] and although its main door does face [site address] that elevation aligns more closely to the front elevation of the neighbouring property at 142 [site address] (No 142) whereas the illustrative plans show the proposed dwelling would be set further back on its plot than 132 [site address] . Moreover, the gap between the nearest elevations of No 144 and No 142 ensure that characteristic spacing is evident and the relationship does not appear cramped. As a result, the context and the impact on the street scene is materially different and to my mind the proposal would not mirror the bungalow placement at No 144.

As this proposal is in outline and the plans are illustrative, I appreciate that the proposed dwelling could be moved away from the boundary with No 130 which could potentially help to make the proposal appear less cramped. However, wherever the dwelling would be positioned it would inevitably harmfully erode the existing important spacing between Nos 130 and 132 which as outlined above creates a sense of spaciousness which makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would be at odds with Policies SCLP5.7 and SCLP 11.1 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan adopted September 2020 (SCLP) which among other things seek to ensure proposals do not harm the street scene, the character of the area and which represent high quality design that demonstrate an understanding of the key features of local character and enhances those features.

In terms of achieving well-designed places, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear in its expectations that the creation of high quality beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. The proposal fails to achieve that objective, and I afford this issue significant weight in the determination of the appeal.

I observed at the site visit that although 128 [site address] (No 128) and No 130 do have windows with obscure glazing that face to the rear they also have clear glazed windows serving habitable rooms that face in the same direction including a large dormer at roof level at No 128. Due to how close these properties are to the appeal site there is clear potential for these windows to overlook the garden area of the proposed development.

However, the illustrative plan shows that the proposed dwelling could be located close to the common boundary with No 130. Notwithstanding my concerns about the impact this arrangement could have on the character and appearance of the area, it does help to ameliorate overlooking of the garden area.

I say that because the illustrative plans show that some of the garden area would be sufficiently screened by the proposed building, particularly the area of garden immediately to the west of the proposed dwelling which would have the greatest degree of privacy. Moreover, views from No 128 towards the appeal site would be more oblique. It follows that I am satisfied that although some of the garden would undoubtedly be overlooked, an appropriate layout could be achieved which would ensure that the living conditions of future occupants would not be unacceptably harmed due to overlooking or the loss of privacy.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with regard to privacy. Consequently, the proposal would accord with [name] 11.1 and SCLP11.2 of the SCLP which among other things seeks to ensure that development provides a good standard of amenity for future occupiers having regard to privacy/overlooking.

I observed at the site visit that there was plenty of off-street parking available along [site address] . I appreciate this was only a snapshot in time during the day and the situation would likely be different in the evening when people are back from work. However, there does not appear to be a significant degree of parking pressure in the area.

I note that the highway authority does not object to the proposal, and I accept the appellant’s evidence that indicates that a vehicle can enter, turn around and exit the site in forward gear. As a result, I am satisfied that adequate access, manoeuvring and parking arrangements could be achieved to serve the proposed dwelling.

In relation to the loss of parking arrangements at No 130, I accept the appellant’s evidence that the appeal site is not attached to any host dwelling as the rear amenity space and off-road parking area that previously served No 130 has been separated following a sale of this land and this is reflected on land registry documents. I also note that No 130 is not included in the appeal site boundary.

In any event, as outlined above I observed that there is plenty of off-street parking available. Even if I accept that the proposal would resulted in the loss of the parking area that previously served No 130, given the availability of off-street parking in close proximity and taking account of the location and the intensity of use of this neighbouring residential property I do not consider that this matter would be fatal to the proposal.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in satisfactory access, manoeuvring and parking provision. Consequently, the proposal accords with Policy SCLP7.2 of the SCLP which seeks to ensure that the level of parking provision required takes account of the location, type and intensity of use.

I turn first to consider housing supply. The Council accept that they are unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land and confirm that they have a housing land supply of 3.36 years which is well below Government expectations.

The proposal would be valuable in boosting housing stock. However, given that the proposal would only result in one additional dwelling that tempers the weight of this matter.

I accept that the proposal would have a cumulative effect in the supply of housing and would make efficient use of the site in a sustainable location. The proposal would also have limited economic, social, and environmental benefits. For example, it would provide some jobs and create demand for materials during the construction phase and would broaden the availability of much needed housing in the area. However, due to the fact that the proposal would only add one additional dwelling I afford this matter only moderate weight.

I note that the appellant has indicated on the application form that the proposed dwelling would be self-build. The Council has a duty under the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act

to keep a register of persons who are interested in acquiring a self-build or custom-build plot, and to also grant enough suitable development permissions for serviced plots to meet identified demand for the district.

The Framework supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. The addition of a self-build dwelling on the appeal site would help to meet the demand for such housing in the area. However, the weight afforded is tempered by the fact that the proposal would only result in one additional dwelling.

In addition, there is no planning obligation to secure some means of ensuring the proposal would be constructed for such use. I have considered whether it would be reasonable to impose a condition to secure such a use. However, monitoring and enforcing any such condition would be extremely difficult, and consequently I am not satisfied that such a condition would meet the necessary tests set out in the relevant Planning Practice Guidance. Consequently, this significantly reduces the weight afforded to this matter and I afford the provision of a self-build dwelling limited weight in the determination of the appeal.

I note that there has been a previous appeal decision that included the space between Nos 130 and 132.1 I do not have the full details of that other proposal, but 1 APP/X3540/W/20/3263548 I note from the decision that like me the previous Inspector identified that the spacing between Nos 130 and [address] scene. However, I also note that the previous proposal involved parking provision for both that proposed development and No 130, that it involved the creation of a new access and that the Inspector in that case observed that the proposed dwelling would take up much of the space between Nos 130 and 132. Moreover, that proposal was not for outline permission. As a result of these differences the context and impact on the character and appearance of the area would be materially different. It follows that this previous appeal decision has limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

I have also taken account of the fact that some neighbours have written in support of the proposed development. However, whether interested parties support or object to a particular proposal does not alter the fact that I need to determine the appeal on the basis of the particular circumstances involved. The fact that some neighbours support the proposal does not justify harmful development on the appeal site.

I have afforded some matters weight as outlined above and overall, I afford the totality of the benefits moderate weight in the determination of the appeal. On the other hand, I afford significant weight to the fact that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area.

As set out above, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. This is at odds with Framework expectations and as a result Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is relevant.

However, given the relative benefits weighed against the harm and having had particular regard to relevant key policies, including directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places I nevertheless find that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is disengaged and the scheme should be considered under a normal planning balance. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 2

In this case, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.