Appeal 6003313

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposed development has been amended in the banner heading above to omit the word retrospective, as it is not a description of development.

On my site visit I viewed the garage block externally, but not internally. I have considered the appeal based on the proposed plans before me.

During the determination of the appeal, 2 signed [name] (UUs) were submitted by the appellant. The Council was given the opportunity to comment on these. I will return to this matter later.

The second sentence of the fourth reason for refusal refers to the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation rather than the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation. On the basis of the evidence before me, this was in error.

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

The existing garage block is positioned to the rear of houses and within a predominantly enclosed area also consisting of surface car parking, a turning area, an access road, and narrow alleyways leading to houses that face [address]. It has a very sparse and functional feel, reflecting its practical use as a rear parking court.

In sharp contrast were the houses fronting the surrounding roads, including [address] East and [address], with landscaping and off-street parking contained within modest setbacks.

Provision of a holiday let studio apartment within the roof space of the garage block would introduce a form of residential accommodation within the rear parking court where there is currently no residential accommodation. The rear parking court would therefore become a destination for visiting guests. There would be comings and goings by guests, including to the side entrance to the garage block, as well as the use of a proposed small adjoining outdoor amenity space area within the rear parking court. Existing comings and goings are primarily associated with the use of the rear parking court by occupiers of the surrounding houses that face the public realm. Taking all these factors together, the proposed development would be at odds with the established character and appearance of the rear parking court and the surrounding housing.

Visible from [address] and surrounding residential properties, the proposed dormers would also draw attention to the presence of accommodation within the roof space of the garage block in the rear parking court, compounding the harm identified.

Reference is made by the appellant to other garage conversions to holiday lets approved by the Council as well as the presence of residential accommodation above a garage block not being unusual. However, little information is before me relating to the particular circumstances of these and whether the circumstances are comparable to the appeal proposals. As such a comparison is of limited relevance in this instance and I have therefore considered the appeal on its individual planning merits.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policies HC1 and CP14 of the Stroud District Local Plan (November 2015) (SDLP), which seek, amongst other things, well-designed residential development that are of a scale, density, layout and design, and compatible with the character and appearance of the part of the settlement in which it would be located.

The proposed dormer windows would serve the open plan area of the holiday let studio apartment and face towards the rear of [address] East. An intervening distance of 11m between these dormers and the boundary of No. 21’s rear garden given in the officer report has not been challenged by the appellant.

My attention has not been drawn to any adopted Council Standards covering separation distances in such circumstances. However, I saw that the intervening distance was across a parking space and part of a turning head with a high screen fence to the rear garden of No. 21. Whilst the proposed dormers are positioned above ground level, I found any direct views of the garden would be over a reasonable distance within such a built-up location.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 21, with particular reference to privacy. I have found no conflict with SDLP Policy ES3 which includes a requirement for developments not to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

The appeal site falls with the Zone of Influence, or [name] area of the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation and the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation/Special Protection Area. These are [name] as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The submitted UUs would secure financial contributions towards measures to mitigate the adverse impacts resulting from increased recreational pressures. This approach accords with the mitigations developed for these [name] and the Council recognises that the relevant reasons for refusal could be overcome with appropriate agreements in place.

However, as I found that the appeal scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of these [name] or undertake [name].

The proposed development would not deliver a dwelling that would make a positive contribution to the housing supply but would deliver a holiday let in an accessible location within a settlement. There would also be associated economic benefits during the works and once the holiday let is occupied. Nevertheless, due to the limited scale of the proposals and thereby the limited scale of the benefits, I afford them limited weight in the planning balance, and they do not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area.

A lack of harm, or policy compliance in respect of biodiversity and living conditions in terms of potential noise and disturbance would have a neutral effect, which weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

I note the representation in support of the appeal scheme. Whilst installing better lighting and improving signage would help direct guests to the holiday let as well as improve surveillance of the area, it does not lead me to a different conclusion.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the materials considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.