Appeal 6003269

The appeal is dismissed.

A screening direction was issued under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations). In exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation 14 (1) and 7 (5) of the EIA Regulations, the Secretary of State directed that the development is not EIA development.

The main issues of the appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • Whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings and the approved houses at the adjacent Stonebridge site.

The appeal site relates to land to the south of Middlesbrough being on the south side of [site address] at its junction with [address]. It lies at the northern end of the wider [site address] site, which is allocated for residential use as part of the Housing Local Plan, 2014 (HLP) and construction is well underway. The site comprises an existing dormer bungalow with access taken from the northwest giving access out onto [site address] and [address].

The proposed development seeks planning permission to demolish the existing bungalow on site and construct four two-storey detached dwellings. The proposals provide two house type designs, with each providing five bedrooms and would have a traditional design.

The site sits in an elevated position where there are prominent views of the appeal site, especially from [site address] and [address]. The outward appearance of the site would however be the rear elevations of plots 1 and 2, which are proposed to back directly onto land that will form landscaped open space as part of the entrance into the adjacent [name] development.

The rear elevations include a two-storey stonework projecting offshoot with feature glazing. However, given the elevated position and surrounding context including the nearby landscaped areas, public roads and footpaths, such an arrangement of rear elevations facing outwards is a missed opportunity to have front elevations facing public vantage points. I appreciate that boundary treatments have been amended to provide a suitable transition between the development site and the landscaped open space, but this would not alter my findings as there would be considerable benefit of front elevations facing outward onto the landscaped open space and public vantage points. This would better integrate the development as part of the surrounding context. I note the materials choice and property design but cannot agree that the rear elevations would appear as a principal elevation. Planting is noted and details could be conditioned but I am not convinced that the rear elevations would be masked from view.

The appellant explains the reasoning for the orientation of properties, and I note the existing access arrangements. I am not however sufficiently convinced that such reasoning is sufficient to justify the overall layout in this location or that the reorientation is not possible which would integrate better resulting in a higher quality of development. The orientation of the properties may not be a policy requirement, but what is a requirement is for proposals to take account of the visual appearance and layout of the development and its relationship with the surrounding area. Additionally, criteria b) of Policy H30 of the HLP specifically requires development at [site address] to take account of the topography and features of the site in the design process. The proposed development fails to suitably consider this in bringing the proposed scheme forward.

I acknowledge the Council’s concerns regarding footprints of the proposed dwellings in comparison to those dwellings surrounding the site which are said to be smaller. While those to the northeast at [address] have a smaller footprint, the approved houses to the south have a range of footprint sizes. The Council claim that these measure up to [address] metres although the appellant claims that they are indeed bigger offering [address] metres of living/habitable space. Even if I accepted the Council’s measurements, the difference between the larger dwellings on the site to the south are not considered to be so significantly different to those proposed. I therefore find that the proposed dwellings would sit comfortably within the site and wider built environment. This element is of lesser concern to me.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies DC1(b and c), CS4(l) and CS5(f) of the [name], 2008 (CS) and Policy H30(b) of the HLP. Such policies together, amongst other matters, require proposals to deliver development of a high-quality design that contributes to improvements in the quality of the townscape. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also be contrary with guidance contained within the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document, 2013 (SPD) and paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) relating to achieving well-designed places.

Plots 3 and 4 would be the closest properties to the approved residential development to the south and at the closest point, the rear elevation of plot 3 would be approximately 14 metres from the side/rear elevation of the approved bungalow on the Stonebridge development (plot 37). Although such a separation distance would accord with the SPD relating to primary elevations and gable elevations, the majority of the rear elevation of plot 3 would overlook the garden area of approved plot 37, rather than its side elevation.

The rear elevation of plot [address] as part of the master bedroom. This area would enjoy unrestricted views at higher level into the garden associated with the approved house behind it which would be less than 10 metres away. The approved bungalow (plot 37) features windows on its rear elevation that serves a living room and master bedroom, with the former being no more than [address] of plot 3. Future occupiers of the bungalow of plot 37 would therefore be overlooked and likely to feel oppressed by the proposed development.

I accept that the layout between plots 3 and 37 is one of an angled nature and that the windows do not directly face one another where a greater separation distance is likely to be required. However, given the size/nature and height of the first-floor external terrace, views would still be available albeit slightly angled to the windows serving the rear elevation of plot 37 which I find to be an unacceptable relationship.

The proposed first floor terrace may be a modest feature serving a bedroom opposed to being an intensely used amenity space. Access can however still be gained to this area which would allow for overlooking of plot [address] quarters. The appellant refers to design amendments, but such are not before me to be able to consider this further, and I do not find a condition appropriate in order to overcome this issue as any changes would need to be assessed fully.

Whilst the site is elevated and situated above parts of the wider [site address] site to the immediate south and surrounding roads, I did not find the appeal site to have a materially higher land level in comparison to the approved bungalow of the Stonebridge development (plot 37). That said, the feeling of being overlooked would be exacerbated by the juxtaposition of large two-storey dwellings dominating a bungalow. This would be over and above what can reasonably be expected in a residential setting. Planting/boundary treatments are noted but I am not convinced that this would sufficiently mitigate against the harm identified.

In coming to such findings, I have considered the dormer window serving the existing bungalow at the appeal site, but I found this window to have an outlook of the space between the side elevation of plot 37 and the detached garage rather than direct views of the garden area serving plot 37.

The bungalow of approved plot 37 sits predominantly behind proposed plot 4 with a separation distance of approximately 16 metres. On the side elevation of plot 37 is a window serving the kitchen/dining area which is considered a primary window and thus understood to require higher separation distances. The separation distance of the rear elevation of proposed plot 4 and the approved plot 37 falls short of the recommended 21 metres for windows of this type and would result in poor levels of residential amenity for future occupiers.

The separation distances may well be guidance only but given the relationship that exists and height of the proposed two-storey properties, I consider that such minimum distances ought to be followed in the particular circumstances of this case to ensure an acceptable level of amenity. Plot 37 may have been approved with awareness of the site’s topography and the potential for future development, but this would not justify harmful development.

Whilst the Proposed Site Layout drawing does not include a maintenance footpath around the properties, this would not detrimentally harm the living conditions of future occupiers. I note that the integral garages measure substandard against what is considered an acceptable length to be deemed a parking space, but I am not convinced that the integral garages would/could not be used at all for such purposes. Even if the driveways were used for parking purposes, this is not uncommon and given the level of space provided, I do not consider it likely that occupiers would need to convert the green space to hardstanding to accommodate additional parking. The possible erosion of the useable garden space and greenery is therefore of lesser concern to me.

For the above reasons, I conclude that overall, the proposed development would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers. It would therefore be contrary to Policies DC1(b and c), CS4(l) and CS5(f) of the CS and Policy H30(b) of the HLP. Such policies, amongst other matters, require proposals to take account of the effect upon the surrounding environment and amenities of occupiers of nearby properties will be minimal both during and after completion. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also be contrary with guidance of the SPD and paragraphs 135 and 139 of the Framework relating to achieving well-designed places.

I am aware of the planning history of the site as well as alterations made to the scheme and discussions with the Council. This would not however alter my findings in relation to the above main issues.

I note problems associated with the existing bungalow and that the proposals would make efficient use of land and provide additional housing stock and homes for the appellant’s family. The appellant also confirms that these will be self-build, and I note the accessibility of the site to services/amenities as well as jobs created during construction. Whilst there are benefits associated with the above, they would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified particularly given the small-scale nature of the proposals.

There may have been a lack of objections from statutory consultees, but this does not mean that the proposed development would not be harmful. Those matters not in dispute would not weigh in favour of the scheme but rather be a neutral factor in my overall decision.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations, either individually or in combination that would outweigh the identified harm and associated plan conflict. I conclude that the appeal is therefore dismissed.