Appeal 6003621

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the application the Council amended the description of development to reflect the two-storey nature of the proposed extension. I have used the Council’s description in my banner heading and decision as this more accurately reflects the proposed development.

The main issues in this appeal are: - • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; • Whether the proposal would make adequate provision for car parking; and : - • Whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular reference to outdoor amenity space and disturbance from noise and odour.

The appeal site (the site) lies on the corner of [address] and [address]. In the vicinity a number of commercial businesses front onto [address]. The ground floor of the building within the site is occupied by a restaurant, with residential accommodation above, accessed through the restaurant and sharing its kitchen.

To the rear is a yard used for informal parking and storage. This provides a sense of space separating the terrace fronting [address] from the terraced dwellings fronting [address].

Lying at the end of the terrace, the building has a fully hipped roof with a parapet wall, typical of the architectural style when it was constructed. Whilst there have been some flat-roofed extensions to the building, these are very much subservient. Roofs in the surrounding area are predominantly pitched.

The character and appearance of the area is dominated by its function as a local centre, set within an established residential area, and its traditional architectural styles and layout. These are positive features to which the building, originally a public house, and retaining much of its original appearance, contributes.

The proposal would add substantial flat roofed rear elements to the building, increasing its massing on the [address] frontage. Given the scale of these, and notwithstanding that they would step down as they get further from [address], the additional built form would dominate the building, and its extensive flat roofed form would be an incongruous feature amongst the more traditional pitched roofs that are typical in the area. The substantial rear elements would, given their height and position at the back edge of the footway, significantly reduce the feeling of spaciousness to the rear of the building.

Thus, the incongruous and dominating rear elements of the proposal would harmfully undermine those features which make positive contributions to the character and appearance of the area. The location of the site on the corner gives the site a degree of prominence and so this harm would be highly visible to anyone passing on [address] or [address].

The appellant has brought to my attention substantial flank walls on the side road frontages of nearby corner properties1. However, these do not extend along those frontages to the same degree and therefore do not result in the same degree of enclosure as the proposal before me. I therefore give their presence limited weight in my deliberations.

The proposed rear element would screen the rear plant on the building. This, however, could be achieved without the need for the bulky rear extension. Whilst the existing flat roofed extensions would be removed, they are, on the frontage of [address], of a much smaller scale than the proposed extensions to the building and do not dominate the existing building in the way that the proposed rear element would. Whilst, due to their basic design, they may not be considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, neither do they result in the harmful effects that I have identified and their contribution to the area is, in this respect, neutral.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, contrary to the expectations of Policy M1 of Dartford Borough’s Local Plan to 2037 (2024) (the Local Plan) in as much as this seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that development responds to, reinforces and enhances positive aspects of the locality. 1 50, 82 and [address]

The proposal would create four flats. The Council has identified that, for such a development, Dartford’s adopted Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (the [name]) identifies a need for five parking spaces to address the future needs of occupiers.

The appellants have submitted a [name] (HTN), prepared by Axis, to accompany the appeal. The HTN identifies that there are amenities within convenient walking distance, including convenience stores. Further, the HTN identifies that nearby bus services, serving stops within convenient walking distance, run bus services to rail stations with access to the wider network, and shopping centres.

Access to the wider cycle network requires negotiating busy streets lacking in dedicated cycle facilities and this may deter many, less confident, cyclists, or those with children.

However, given the level of access to alternative modes of transport, it is feasible for future occupiers to fulfil their everyday travel needs using modes other than the private car.

Further, the type of development proposed, flatted development, is likely to generate lower levels of car ownership. Given the above, a lower level of parking provision would be justified. The appellants, within the HTN suggest an increase in demand, assessed for three flats, of around two spaces. Whilst there is dispute between the parties as to whether the existing accommodation constitutes a separate unit of accommodation, the building has residential accommodation already. However, rounding the calculated demand upwards, to whole parking spaces, to provide a robust assessment of future additional demand, and using the appellants figures, an additional demand for three car parking spaces would be generated.

Whilst there are parking restrictions governing parking around the site on the [address] frontage and for much of the side elevation facing onto [address], the rest of [address] and neighbouring side streets allow unrestricted on street parking.

Whilst the site is set in a parade of shops, the side streets and [address] are predominantly residential, much of the housing being in the form of terraces and there is limited off-street parking. This, together with local demands from people visiting the shops and businesses, results in significant demand for the available unrestricted parking. Even using the appellants’ calculation, the proposal would increase such demand, in direct competition with existing residential use.

Of itself, lack of car parking provision has not been found to effectively deter car ownership unless linked to other controls and provision of realistic modal alternatives and I note that car ownership levels in the Borough are still increasing.

It has been suggested that the proposal could be considered a suitable site for car free development. However, given that the nearby streets provide unrestricted free parking, there is no effective means of preventing future occupiers of the site from keeping a motor vehicle and seeking to park it on street. Under such circumstances the proposal would not fit the accepted definition of car free, it would simply make no provision for the parking needs of future occupiers.

Whilst, through the imposition of a suitable planning condition, the development could be required to provide future occupiers with [name] in association with a Travel Plan, these cannot, of themselves, effectively prevent or control car ownership by the future occupiers or their visitors.

A parking beat survey is included within the HTN. This demonstrates that, during the hours covered by the survey, parking spaces were available within reasonable walking distance on street. However, the surveys were conducted between 00.30am and 05.30am on weekdays. This time period omits weekend periods when parking demand for residential uses would be likely to also compete against peak demand from businesses operating locally. It has not been demonstrated, therefore, that parking would be available on street for future occupiers returning during this period.

Given the degree of competition for on-street parking between residents and local businesses the proposal would, through increasing parking demand in the area whilst making no provision to address this, result in an unacceptable effect on the amenity of local residents.

I note that Kent County Council, the Local Highway Authority (LHA), did not object to the proposal. However, the LHA are not, in this case, the parking authority: that duty falls upon the Council. [name] note that the LHA considered the site a potential location for car free development. However, as I have identified above, no effective means has been proposed to ensure that the future occupiers would not keep a car on street.

I therefore find that the proposal would not make adequate provision for car parking. This would be contrary to the aims of Policies M15 and M16 of the Local Plan, which together seek, amongst other things, to minimise and manage transport impacts of development, including localised residual impacts from increased pressure for on-street parking and provide an appropriate level and form of vehicle parking provision, taking into account any existing provision as relevant to the development, and in full accordance with the applicable [name].

For similar reasons, the proposal would also be contrary to the guidance provided within the [name], which aims to manage the effects of car parking demand generated by development.

There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed flats meet [name]. However, none of the flats is provided with any external amenity space, either private or communal. The appellants state that, given the constraints of the site, they are unable to incorporate any amenity space for the future occupiers within the site, but identify that the flats have been designed to ensure all habitable rooms benefit from high levels of outlook and sunlight/daylight with large elements of glazing to all habitable rooms. However, in actuality the principle outlook from Flat 01 would be towards the refuse/recycling compound.

Whilst three of the four units would exceed national floorspace standards, and the fourth would be compliant, indoor space does not fulfil the same needs as outdoor recreational space.

The appellant has identified that there are public amenity spaces within walking distance of the site. Whilst these would provide opportunities for open air recreation, they, again, do not fulfil all of the functions of private amenity space. Their use, whilst supportive of the health and wellbeing of future occupiers, would not be an equivalent substitute for private amenity space.

The restaurant’s recycling/waste storage area would be sited directly opposite the principle elevation of Flat 01, which contains its entrance and a window. This would result in noise disturbance to the occupiers of the flat during servicing of the bins. Further the entrance and window on that face of [address] proximity to the vent serving the kitchen of the restaurant. Given the limited separation of the door and window of Flat 01 the position of the vent from the kitchen provides potential for odour to enter these flats.

The appellants have submitted an [name], prepared by [name]. This identifies that the release of odours from the restaurant kitchen would have potential to impact on future occupiers of Flat 01, but that this could be mitigated by altering the vent so that it discharges one metre above the height of the roof of the new extension. This solution would, however, entail an additional length of chimney, or the replacement of the existing one. Whilst this would be likely to be effective, no details of such a proposal are before me. Given the scope of the works, they have potential to significantly alter the proposal and so it would be unreasonable to require such details through a planning condition.

The Odour Report identifies that the commercial refuse bins would be stored in secure covered refuse stores. It also identifies that odour emissions would be controlled through an active ventilation system utilising carbon filters. However, the drawings do not specifically state how the top would be enclosed. Given the height of the store, a roof would restrict opening of any bin lid, making the arrangement impractical unless the roof of the bin store could also be opened.

On the basis of the evidence before me it has not been demonstrated that an effective means of odour control would be provided for the bin store. The design of the store may need considerable alteration to make such a system practicable. In these circumstances, requiring details of the bin store to be provided for approval through a planning condition would be unreasonable.

I therefore find that the proposal does not provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular reference to outdoor amenity space and disturbance from noise and odour. This would be contrary to the aims of Policies M2 and M9 of the Local Plan in as much as, together, these require that all development must demonstrate that it is designed and located to not result in unacceptable material impacts on neighbouring, the Borough’s environment or public health including in respect to noise disturbance or vibration and odour; and must provide sufficient and high quality amenity space to meet the health, recreation and functional needs of occupants and to contribute to good design, wellbeing and wider environmental objectives.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area because of its design, fail to provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers and have an adverse effect on the amenity of neighbours by increasing parking stress in the area.

There would be conflict with Policies M1, M2, M9, M15 and M16 of the Local Plan. It would therefore not accord with the development plan as a whole.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of homes. The appeal site is previously developed land as defined by the Framework and within the built-up area of Dartford, with convenient transport connections to Dartford Town Centre and the town’s railway station. The Framework supports the development of windfall sites and of under-utilised land. Great weight should be given to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes and substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land for that purpose. Other provisions of the Framework give support to the development of brownfield land within settlements and observe that small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement. These considerations therefore weigh in favour of the proposal.

The policies in the Framework seek to both deliver a sufficient supply of homes and achieve well-designed places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. However, the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. That would not be so here.

The provision of an additional three dwelling units would supplement the existing housing supply, and there would be additional short term economic benefits through increased activity in the construction industry and supply chain and longer term support of local shops and businesses. However, because of the scale of the proposal, these benefits are limited. In this instance the requirements to provide high quality design overrides the limited benefit of three additional dwellings. Therefore, the adverse impacts of the proposal are not outweighed by the benefits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan 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.