Appeal 6003046

The appeal is dismissed.

The submitted plans contain several inconsistencies and discrepancies in respect of windows, a door, a porch and ground levels. Notwithstanding this, given the main issues and matters I have considered, and my decision on those issues, I am able to determine the appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and, • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 5 and [site address] with particular reference to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site is located on the southern side of [address], a residential street on a hillside within the urban area of Matlock. The character of the street scene is formed by two-storey properties on the northern side set above road level with consistent scale and materials and similarities in appearance. The southern side of the road has a more varied character formed by split-level two-storey dwellings which, due to the significant level differences from north to south, present to the street as single-storey properties. Whilst there is variation in the appearance of the properties, the spaciousness of their layout creates a pleasant, verdant character.

The proposal would deliver a split-level detached dwelling on the site, appearing to the road as a gable-fronted bungalow. I cannot be certain whether it would incorporate a porch, and the size and position of the front kitchen window is also unclear. The external walls of the dwelling would be finished in white render and stone, although the plans do not show the division of these materials across the elevations.

Notwithstanding these uncertainties, the manner in which the proposed dwelling would address the street scene would differ from neighbouring properties in that it would consist solely of a gabled frontage. It would be narrower and have less of a street presence than the others and be contained within a narrower plot, resulting in a cramped appearance. The proposal would thus constitute an incongruous intrusion into the street scene, detrimentally harming its character. If included, the porch would constitute a substantial, narrow forward projection, not typical of other properties nearby, adding to my concerns about the incompatibility of the proposals with the character of the street scene.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed dwelling would significantly harm the appearance of the street scene due to the form, scale, appearance and cramped nature of the proposed dwelling. The proposal accordingly conflicts with Policies S3 and PD1 of the Derbyshire Dales District Council Local Plan 2013-2033 (2017) (the LP) which, amongst other things, require that new development is of a scale, density, layout and design that is compatible with local character.

The proposed dwelling would be sited along the side elevation of no [address] proximity to it. The side elevations of no 5 include several windows facing the appeal site at both ground and first floor. The bulk and height of the proposed dwelling would significantly impact on the natural light to, and outlook from, these windows. Being in close proximity, the proposed dwelling would constitute a dominant and oppressive feature and create an imposing sense of enclosure to the detriment of the living conditions of occupiers of no 5.

Three windows are proposed on the side of the proposed dwelling which would face the side elevation of no 5. I cannot be certain of the exact position of one, due to the issues with the plans, but the proposed windows would lead to a harmful impact on the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers through unacceptable overlooking. I note the appellant’s suggestion that these windows could be fitted with obscure glazing and had I been minded to allow the appeal, this could have been controlled by planning condition. Users of the external steps to the eastern side of the proposed dwelling would, likewise, have elevated views into the windows of no 5. The height and position of any screening required to prevent this would add further to my concerns regarding the outlook from no 5.

The proposed lounge window in the side elevation of the proposed dwelling would allow overlooking of no 7’s rear garden at close proximity and would, as a result, lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy and harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property.

A balcony is proposed which would extend beyond the rear of Nos 5 and 7. The balcony is of a size which would allow people to congregate and sit out. Given its siting alongside the private rear gardens of Nos 5 and 7 and its elevated level relative to those gardens, use of the balcony would give rise to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of both neighbouring properties by significantly reducing the privacy of their gardens. Furthermore, its use would allow views into the rear windows of these neighbouring dwellings, harming the privacy of occupiers. The appellant’s submissions suggest that the balcony could be omitted from the proposal. However, the scheme before me includes this feature, and my assessment of the proposal must therefore include the impact of its use.

Considering all of the above, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 5 and 7 by reason of loss of privacy, light and outlook. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policy PD1 of the LP which, amongst other things, requires that new development achieves a satisfactory relationship with adjacent development in terms of the amenity of occupiers.

The appellant advances the proposal as a self-build dwelling. Notwithstanding this, there is no planning obligation before me which would secure the development as self-build as defined in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). In the absence of an appropriate means of securing the dwelling as a self-build property, I can give limited weight to this factor in support of the appeal.

Decision makers are required by the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act to have due regard to advancing equality of opportunity and to eliminate discrimination in relation to, amongst others, age or physical impairment. The appellant and their partner advise that they are elderly and have restricted mobility. I am advised that the dwelling would allow for single-level occupation with the full range of facilities required and then provide for a 3- bedroomed family house when no longer needed. It is evident that the internal layout has been designed in this manner and I attribute positive weight in favour of these matters.

The appellant proposes that the dwelling would incorporate low-carbon technologies including solar panels and a heat pump. Given that these external features are not included on the plans and do not therefore form part of the proposal before me, I can give little weight to this factor in support of the development.

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, I give only limited weight to these benefits.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with Policies S3 and PD1 of the LP. 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 provide acceptable living conditions. Therefore, the conflict with Policies S3 and PD1 should be given significant weight in this appeal.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council’s policies for the delivery of housing are deemed to be out of date and the provisions of paragraph 11 d) of the Framework are applicable. There are no policies listed in footnote 7 that apply to the appeal site. The proposal is therefore considered under the provisions of paragraph 11 d) ii).

The proposal would deliver a single dwelling on a small site within an existing settlement in accordance with the spatial strategy for the area. Together with those benefits of the scheme referred to above, these attract moderate weight in its favour.

Weighed against this, the scheme would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Taken together, these amount to substantial harm, and I attach significant weight to this.

My finding is therefore that the adverse impacts of approving the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.