Appeal 6003758

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice rather than the application form description. Whilst including useful information regarding the development, the application form description is of greater detail than is necessary to describe it.

The appeal submission includes a draft [name] (UU) that seeks to overcome the third reason for refusal. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) and interested parties have had an opportunity to comment. I have therefore accepted this draft UU as part of the appeal considerations, as this would not prejudice interested parties.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to trees within and around the appeal site that are protected by Tree Preservation Order; • the effect on living conditions of occupiers of the proposed new dwelling, with particular regard to daylight and sunlight; and • the effect on living conditions of occupiers of No [site address] , with particular regard to privacy.

The existing and proposed parking provision for the appeal building is indicated on the proposed block plan as “car parking for two cars, as existing”. This includes the southern side of this building, which is enclosed at some height above by several tree canopies that are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO). These trees are of substantial size and make a significant and positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, most notably when viewed from [address] where the vehicular access to the proposal site lies.

During my site visit, I found this enclosed area south of the appeal building to be also mainly covered by a lean-to style canopy structure attached to this building, which is not included in the appeal plans. This structure is supported by three slender wooden posts and concrete supports.

Under this structure, I noted a car parked or stored and that its access out of the site is restricted by a separate low caged structure, mainly sited beyond the front of the appeal building and with hardstanding beneath it. That caged structure obstructs access for the abovementioned car, and some building materials were stored on and around the car. It thus appears that this car has been in situ at this location for some time.

However, I found this area to the southern side of the appeal building to be mainly devoid of hardstanding. Therefore, and with reference to the proposed block plan, additional hardstanding would be needed for the proposed vehicle parking in this area. Moreover, this plan also includes a cycle storage building at the southwestern corner of the proposed plot. Whilst this is not a substantial structure in itself, it would result in pressure for a paved access to be provided for convenient use for future occupiers.

The above development would all be under the canopy spreads of the TPO trees and close to their trunks along the southern boundary. The majority of tree roots are typically found in the top shallow section of soil. Therefore, and in the absence of recent tree survey information before me demonstrating the contrary, the proposal could cause root damage to these trees, including through compaction of the soil structure.

Even if the above development could be undertaken within root protection areas in accordance with industry established construction methods, this layout would likely result in future occupiers of the appeal building (as a self-contained new dwelling) being subject to or concerned about safety issues. This could include damage to vehicles and other domestic property caused by the TPO trees south of the appeal building during periods of inclement weather.

In this context, I envisage that it would be difficult to resist future applications to prune or fell these trees in circumstances where safety is at issue. Such loss or extensive reduction of these trees would significantly harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I view this to be a likely and realistic outcome arising directly from the proposed vehicle and cycle parking layout, and which goes beyond speculation or hypotheticals.

I am thus not persuaded that this harm could be overcome by planning conditions, including in respect of an updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment, [name], or tree protection measures during construction. The fact that the existing building has coexisted with the surrounding trees for many years, and that the proposal would not extend its footprint, does not alter my above conclusion.

I saw some evidence of historic pruning of existing small tree branches over the appeal building. Some further removal would be required to facilitate the proposed eaves and ridge height increase. Whilst the relatively limited extent of these works would unlikely harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and may not in themselves harm the future health of the affected trees, this does not mitigate the harm that I have identified in respect of the proposed development south of the appeal building.

I do not have sufficient certainty at this stage that an amended proposed parking layout for the new dwelling, even if made subject of a planning condition, would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and capacity. Such a scheme would require further consultation with the local Highway Authority, and the Council’s Tree Officer.

I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would significantly conflict with [name] SDP7 and SDP12 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (LPR) (adopted 2015), and Policy CS13 of the of the Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CSDPD) ([name] incorporating the [name], March 2015). Collectively, these policies set out, amongst other things, that development should follow a robust design process, retain important landscape features, and be compatible with existing natural features that contribute to the quality of the local environment.

Section 4 of the [name] (RDG) (September 2006) advises, amongst other things, that proposals for new development should take into consideration potential constraints that may affect the development of the site and the environment around it, including trees governed by TPOs. For the above reasons, compliance with this guidance has not been demonstrated.

The LPA’s suggested conditions include a detailed arboricultural method statement to be provided pre-commencement. However, provision of suggested conditions by the LPA forms part of the normal appeal procedure and is done so without prejudice to its outcome. This therefore does not in itself justify allowing an appeal.

Whilst my visit was a snapshot in time during a mid-afternoon period, I saw that the proposed garden area for the new dwelling was receiving direct sunlight. I also noted the level of canopy cover over this area to be not as dense or extensive as along the aforementioned area along the south of the appeal building. The separation distance to the TPO trees along the southern site boundary is sufficient to avoid undue shading impacts on the proposed garden area for the new dwelling.

I also observed that most of the rear elevation of the appeal building (facing the retained plot of No 7) was receiving direct sunlight. Due to the site orientation and the siting in relation to surrounding trees and neighbouring buildings, its front elevation would also receive direct sunlight.

Therefore, despite the presence of the surrounding TPO trees, the habitable spaces of the new dwelling would not be shaded throughout the day to an adverse degree. Even in the absence of a BRE daylight/sunlight assessment before me, for the above reasons I envisage that occupiers of the proposed new dwelling would be provided with adequate daylight and sunlight.

In the above respects, I conclude that the appeal proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for occupiers of the proposed new dwelling in terms of daylight and sunlight, without resulting in adverse impacts on surrounding TPO trees, or on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The scheme thus complies with Saved Policy SDP1(i) of the LPR. This requires, amongst other things, development to not unacceptably affect the health and amenity of the city and its citizens. In turn, I have found no conflict with the relevant aims of the guidance contained in Sections 2 and 4 of the RDG. Living conditions – future occupiers of No [site address]

The existing dwelling of No [site address] has a wide and spacious garden. The appeal building is not sited directly facing No 7. Whilst the proposal would include a first-floor bedroom window at close proximity to No 7’s rear garden boundary, views towards this existing dwelling would be oblique and of some distance.

Views towards No 7’s paved patio, and raised seating and terrace area beyond, would be even more oblique. Given the proximity of this area to the existing main dwelling, which received sunlight at the time of my visit, it appears to form the primary external private area for No 7. Especially as during my visit, No 7’s larger grassed area further south of this area was mainly in shade by the large trees along the site’s side boundary.

Direct views from the proposed bedroom window towards the retained plot of No 7 would be mainly towards the abovementioned shaded grassed area. However, given the separation distance and the very oblique angle to No 7’s paved area as described above, the function of that primary private space would not be adversely affected by the proposal. Furthermore, direct views from the proposed bedroom window would be notably mitigated by the extent of elevation above the grassed area, and the window’s height above finished floor level.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for occupiers of the retained dwelling of No [site address] in respect of privacy. It thus complies with Saved Policy SDP1(i) of the LPR which requires, amongst other things, development to not unacceptably affect the health and amenity of the city and its citizens. In turn, I have found no conflict with the relevant aims of the guidance contained in Sections 2 and 4 of the RDG.

Based on the evidence before me, the proposal is within influencing distance of the Solent and Dorset Coast Special Protection Area (SPA), the Solent and [name]/Ramsar site, and the New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/SPA/Ramsar site. To address the third reason for refusal, the draft UU seeks to provide mitigation measures for the impacts on the above sites arising from the proposal.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations) require that permission may only be granted after having ascertained that it will not affect the integrity of [name] and Ramsar sites. The LPA has requested a number of additions and amendments to the UU, and the appellant has expressed a willingness to provide a revised UU. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on another substantive ground, I have not considered this matter further. It has therefore not been necessary for me to carry out an Appropriate Assessment as required by the Habitat Regulations.

The second reason for refusal cites conflict with LPR Policy H7. However, this policy does not refer to living conditions in respect of light or privacy. I have thus found no conflict with this policy. The proposal would not result in the loss of a family home as defined by CSDPD Policy CS16, including in terms of its private garden space to be retained. The new dwelling would also comply with the [name] in terms of minimum floorspace, if it is habited by no more than four occupiers. A lack of policy conflict in the above respects neither weighs in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

The appellant perceives an inconsistency in the LPA’s assessment of the current proposal when compared to the 2017 planning permission for the appeal building. The planning history of the site indicates that an arboricultural method statement and a tree survey plan were submitted as conditional requirements of that 2017 permission. Notwithstanding the above, and that the existing garage and shed buildings have occupied the same footprint for many years, the material circumstances of the appeal proposal are different insofar as it would involve creation of a new dwelling.

Reference is also made to the neighbouring property to the south being permitted to build within close proximity of a tree between it and the appeal building, and that many existing dwellings in the area experience similar or greater levels of tree cover. I must however determine the appeal scheme based on its own site-specific merits and the current evidence before me. The abovementioned historic and neighbouring development therefore do not justify allowing this appeal.

I have found significant conflict with [name] SDP7 and SDP12, and CSDPD Policy CS13. The extent of policy conflict I have identified amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The LPA accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. It can currently demonstrate a 2.85-year supply against its housing target, with addition of a 20% buffer for not passing the [name]. This indicates a significant housing supply shortfall that has persisted for some time.

Given the above, paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged. There is nothing before me to indicate that the policies in the Framework’s footnote 7 are relevant in this case.

Hence, the balance in Framework paragraph 11d)ii is applicable. This sets out that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so 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 including those for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, and securing well-designed places.

The site is within the city boundary, surrounded by existing residences, and the proposal would utilise an existing building. The proposed modest family home would benefit from established vehicle and pedestrian access from [address] and good links to local shops, schools, and public transport. The scheme would thus be an infill form of development and an efficient use of land.

The Framework sets out that small and windfall sites can make an important contribution to meeting an area’s housing requirement and are often delivered relatively quickly. Provision of one new dwelling would be small in scale relative to the city’s overall need. However, it would provide for an identified housing need in response to the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Small sites can cumulatively provide a significant contribution to the overall housing need. Given the above, along with the extent of housing shortfall in the city, the associated benefits of the proposal are afforded moderate weight.

The Framework sets out that the efficient use of land should take into account the importance of securing well-designed places. As set out in the first Main Issue, I have found that the proposed new dwelling is not well-designed in terms of its vehicle and cycle parking layout. The Framework also sets out that trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and that development that is not well designed should be refused.

In the specific circumstances of this appeal, the adverse impacts I have identified 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, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.