Appeal 6003475

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises the side garden of [site address] (the host property), a two-storey semi-detached house, within a residential area. The host property has a generous garden area that extends to the side, front and rear. With the adjoining property, the pair of dwellings occupy a prominent corner plot position within the street scene.

The street scene is primarily characterised by semi-detached dwellings. The houses largely have a traditional appearance and although there is some variation in design, style and appearance, they are two storey buildings. The houses primarily have a consistent front building line, set back from the road by front gardens and / or parking areas. Overall, this gives the area a formal character and appearance.

As a detached, one and a half storey dwelling, set close to the pavement edge, the proposal would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development within the established street scene. Due to the size constraints of the site, the sub-division of the garden and the construction of a new dwelling would also appear cramped within the plot, built up to each side boundary with a limited amount of space to the front and rear. Furthermore, set close to the front boundary, and noticeably forward of existing properties to the side, the proposal would be highly prominent and abrupt within the street scene. Consequently, the proposal would sit uncomfortably within the street scene and appear discordant.

While the proposal would be a smaller house, resulting in a subservient appearance, with suitable facing materials, the half hip roof design, which would not be comparable to the roof designs of other houses in the area, would further contribute to the incongruous appearance of the proposal.

My attention has been drawn to a pair of existing, new build bungalows in the area, which I observed during my site visit. However, those bungalows are located within a different part of the street scene, in a location where bungalows are more commonplace. The external appearance of the bungalows also have an acceptable design and appearance. Given this, that example does not add weight in favour of the scheme. Therefore, as I am required to do, I have determined the case before me on the site-specific circumstances and on its own merits.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 (CLP) and [name] C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (LP 1996), which taken together require, amongst other things, new development to complement and enhance the character of its context through sensitive siting, layout and high-quality design.

The Council accept that they cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. The proposal would contribute to boosting the supply of new housing, as referenced in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). As such, the proposal would contribute to addressing the current shortfall in housing land supply in the area, making efficient use of under-utilised residential garden. The proposal would provide a starter home or a small family house in a sustainable area, close to local services, public transport, and employment opportunities. It would also add to the mix of properties in the area, and it could be built to comply with [name] of building regulations. There would also be social and economic benefits to local services during the construction and occupancy phases of the development.

No objections have been raised with regards to the access and parking arrangements, flood risk or the effect on neighbouring properties. Biodiversity enhancements could also be achieved, as well as suitable bin and cycle storage arrangements. Nevertheless, these are requirements of planning policy and taken together they carry neutral weight.

The proposal has been put forward as [name] and [name] (self-build). The Framework at Paragraph 73b) supports small sites to come forward for self-build housing. Even so, a signed legal agreement to secure the proposal as a self-build plot has not been submitted with the appeal. As such, without an appropriate means to secure the development as self-build, I attach limited weight to the matter.

The appeal proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area by virtue of its abrupt, cramped and incongruous appearance within the context of the existing street scene. This harm would be significant.

According to the Framework the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve. It also requires that developments are sympathetic to local character and are visually attractive in terms of good architecture and layout. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and Policy ESD15 of the CLP and [name] C28 and C30 of the LP 1996 should be given significant weight in this appeal.

At 3.1 years the housing land shortfall is considerable and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out at Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. In these circumstances, Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts 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 which include, amongst other things, securing well-designed places.

The benefits associated with one additional dwelling would be relatively minor even taking account of the Council’s housing land supply position and the objective of the Framework which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing. The Framework states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.

Accordingly, the adverse impacts of the proposal’s design and appearance 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 the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.