Appeal 6003750

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has provided an additional plan in the form of a CGI street scene (Ref: KA55717-BRY-XX-XX-A-0001_). Given that this does not amend the scheme and simply provides an image as to what the scheme would look like, I am satisfied that the Council are not disadvantaged by my consideration of this plan.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is located in a residential area that includes a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached properties. It comprises a rectangular shaped parcel of privately owned grassed land which is located between the public highway and the side elevation of No [address]. A row of 8 flat roof garages are located to the east of the appeal site and front onto [address].

There is a uniform building line along [address] and surrounding streets although not all properties front onto the highway. For example, the terraced houses at 18-32 and [address] (evens) are positioned at a [address] and front onto grassed areas of open space. These areas of open space are commonplace throughout [address] and the surrounding streets. These spaces contribute to the openness of the area, providing an attractive setting to the built form in the area. The appeal site’s close relationship with adjoining areas of open space contributes positively towards the open character and appearance of the area. Given the lack of built form, there is a sense of openness associated with the appeal site.

The new dwelling would be sited next to No 34 and would front onto the area of open space rather than [address]. Whilst the dwelling respects the building line of the adjacent garages on [address] the proposed two-storey dwelling would be set forward of the flank wall of No 34 and would be notably taller that the adjacent garages. This would result in a building that would be highly prominent and intrusive within the streetscene which would erode the open characteristics of the site and the wider area.

Moreover, the narrow form of the new dwelling would not reflect the form or design of nearby development, including the adjoining uniform terrace of which No 34 forms part. The proposal, whilst utilising similar materials to nearby dwellings, would be an alien addition in this established residential area. It would not add to the overall quality of the area, or be sympathetic to local character and history, nor would it be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout. The addition of a detached property adjacent to the terraced properties would detract from this uniformity and appear incongruous in the street.

My findings on this are consistent with, and reinforced by, a previous recent appeal decision concerning the site (Ref: APP/E2530/W/23/3319347, dated 9th January 2024). Whilst the Council’s housing land supply position may have changed, that development was also for a single detached dwelling and so is comparable. Therefore, that decision is highly material in this determination.

The appellant has suggested that the proposed dwelling would have no more adverse effect on the openness of the area than a nearby large tree. However, such trees enhance the character and appearance of the area, which is not the case with the appeal proposal.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with Policies SP2, SP3 and DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011–2036 and Policy 2 of the Stamford Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036. Amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that high quality design is delivered throughout the district that makes a positive contribution to local distinctiveness, vernacular and the character of the area.

The new dwelling is advanced as self-build housing (SBH), for which there is an undisputed unmet need in the District. However, I have no mechanism before me, for example a Section 106 agreement, by which this could be secured. In the absence of a mechanism to secure the status of the development as SBH this limits the positive weight that can be attributed to the delivery of SBH. Moreover, I cannot be certain that the development would be exempt from mandatory [name] requirements. However, as this latter issue is unlikely to be determinative given my other findings, I have not pursued the matter further with the parties.

The appellant has placed weight on the need for 2 bedroom properties in the District. Whilst this is not disputed by the Council, only limited weight can be placed on the contribution arising from a single dwelling.

I recognise that the failure of this appeal could affect the living arrangements for the appellant. The proposed dwelling would provide a permanent home for a travelling family and I am aware that both an adult and child within the household have medical conditions that necessitate a permanent home. Furthermore, the appellant’s family are being forced off their current site and are unable to purchase a property due to their current financial situation, but they do have the finances and skills to construct the proposed dwelling.

I have had due regard to Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), Article 3 of the [name] on the Rights of the Child and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010. Disability, race and age are relevant protected characteristics to which the PSED applies. I have regarded no other consideration as more important than the best interests of the child. However, these best interests will not always outweigh other considerations including those that impact negatively on the environment. I have nonetheless kept the best interest of children at the forefront of my mind in reaching my decision.

I accept that dismissing this appeal would interfere with the appellant’s right under Article 8 of the HRA as it would deny him and his family the opportunity to establish a home on the site. However, such rights are qualified, and interference may be justified in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key. The needs of the appellant must be balanced against the significant and permanent harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area which is in the wider public interest. [name] sympathise with the circumstances of the appellant and his family, I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the needs of the family cannot be met elsewhere locally either on another self-build plot or within rented accommodation. In this instance interference would be proportionate on the rights of the adults and the best interest of the child given the public aim of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area.

Both parties accept that the Council does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply and agree that the supply figure is 4.07 years which represents a significant shortfall. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework applies which aligns with the approach set out in footnote 8. There is nothing before me to suggest that there are strong reasons to refuse the development as outlined in paragraph 11 d) i). Accordingly, paragraph 11d) ii) is engaged.

This stipulates that 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 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. Footnote 9 of the Framework sets out the specific policies referred to in paragraph 11 d) ii). These include paragraphs 135 and 139 of the Framework which seek to secure high quality design.

The proposal would deliver one additional house, contributing to housing supply where there is unmet need and supporting the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. It would provide a dwelling to address the needs of the appellant and his family. Moreover, the proposal seeks to provide SBH where there is a particular local shortfall. The development would also provide economic benefits during both the construction phase and in future occupation. However, given the proposal is for just one dwelling, the benefits would be modest in extent. Also, as indicated above substantial weight can attributed to the provision of a home for a traveller family.

Furthermore, it can be seen from my reasoning above that the appeal proposal would as a result of its location and design, materially harm the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with the policies of the Framework which seek to achieve well-designed places. This is a major shortcoming of the appeal scheme, and I attach significant weight to this harm.

Taking all matters into account, the adverse impacts of the proposal 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.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.