Appeal 6003804

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for three new dwellings and associated works at land to rear of [name] and [name], [site address] , Wellesbourne, Warwickshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/01016/FUL, subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule.

In support of the appeal, the appellant has submitted an amended plan which shows changes to the garden layout and first floor layout to the properties, replacing the single occupancy rear bedrooms in Plot 1 and 3 with study/home offices.

In deciding whether it is appropriate to accept this plan, I have had regard to the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. This states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and what is considered by the Inspector at appeal should be essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage. In this instance, this revised plan alters the type of houses applied for. I am therefore not accepting this plan as it would prejudice interested parties. I have determined the appeal on the original plans submitted with the application.

The main issues are:  the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to privacy.  whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to the provision of private internal and external amenity space.

The appeal site is located centrally in Wellesbourne and comprises a cleared plot surrounded by commercial and residential buildings. It fronts [site address] and has a staggered rear boundary towards properties along [address]. It is enclosed by blank walling to the side and rear. No [address] sits behind the deeper section of the appeal site and comprises a two-storey building with a commercial ground floor and residential first floor, along with a terrace. The evidence before me indicates that No [address] is in commercial use only and as such there are no residential occupiers.

The proposal would form a row of three, two-storey houses, each with a single first-floor principal bedroom window in the rear elevation facing towards the residential unit at No 12. These windows would not be dissimilar in size, height or proximity to the first-floor rear facing window in the rear of the neighbouring property at No 13 [site address] . There is no dispute that the separation distance between the rear facing windows of the new dwellings and those at No 12 would be less than the 21-metre separation distance within a 45-degree cone set out within the Council’s Development Requirements SPD.

However, the existing development within this part of Wellesbourne is relatively dense with properties in [site address] backing onto properties in [address], in close proximity. The SPD establishes that in applying the separation distances that other factors must be taken into account including the design and character of the property and nearby properties. In this case, the historic layout of nearby development is such that there is a degree of mutual overlooking. I have not been directed to evidence that demonstrates that the relationship of nearby properties is such that a high standard of amenity is not achieved for the occupiers.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy. As such, it complies with Policy CS.9 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011 to 2031) ([name]) which requires, amongst other matters, for development to ensure that occupants of neighbouring buildings will be protected from unacceptable loss of privacy.

The proposed houses would each have a kitchen, storage and living room at ground floor, with two first floor bedrooms. The three houses, whilst similar, differ in overall floorspace, including the size of bedrooms and the quantum of rear private garden space.

The Council’s report makes reference to the [name] (NDSS) setting out that each of the new dwellings falls short of them. However, the Planning Practice Guidance makes it clear that where a local planning authority wishes to require an internal space standard, they should only do so by reference in their Local Plan to the NDSS. Neither Policy CS.9 of the [name] nor the Council’s SPD refers to the NDSS and therefore the NDSS are not determinative in this case.

Each of the houses would have space for everyday furniture items/appliances and there would be space within the bedrooms for a bed and storage. The rooms would be light and airy and whilst bedroom 2 in each house would be small, it would not be an unpleasant room within which to spend time in. Moreover, the sitting and dining area would be a size to allow seating and a dining table as well as circulation space for the intended occupiers.

The Council has also cited the National Design Guide (2019) (NDG), noting the aspiration to deliver good quality internal and external environments for their users including room sizes. The NDG is not submitted in evidence, and I am not directed to specific dimensions for room sizes within that document.

I appreciate the changing requirements of future occupiers but recognise that this proposed development cannot foresee the future scenario of every domestic eventuality. Whilst work patterns have changed over recent years and the need to plan in storage and flexible spaces is important, the proposed development should not prescribe how future occupants should plan to use the spaces available nor how to incorporate furniture and utilities.

The SPD provides general guidance on the depth of a rear private garden as well as an indicative size. Whilst the garden areas of all three proposed houses fall short of the suggested 40sqm, Plot 3 is also below the recommended depth. As guidance the SPD does suggest that such spaces will vary according to a number of site factors. I note that the high density of this central location within the town, where smaller gardens are not untypical, would allow for tighter garden spaces and yards to serve houses of this size. Moreover, the gardens to each unit would be large enough to accommodate outside furniture and equipment and areas to store refuse bins. They would allow occupiers to enjoy their outside space which would contribute to their health and well-being.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would provide a high standard of amenity and acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regards to private internal and external amenity space, in accordance with Policy CS.9 of the [name] which requires, amongst other matters, for development to ensure a good standard of space and amenity for occupiers.

The site lies within the Wellesbourne Conservation Area (CA). It also is located immediately adjacent to No 13 [site address] ([address]), a grade II listed building 1(LB) and opposite No 20 [site address] ([address]), a grade II listed building2. Other listed buildings are close by and include the Church of [name], a grade II*3 listed building, along with a number of associated grade II listings including gates, railings and monuments within its curtilage, and also the [address], a grade II listed building4.

Heritage matters do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusing the proposed development. Nonetheless, in line with section 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special 1 Listed Building Entry Number: 1382015 2 Listed Building Entry Number: 1382016 3 Listed Building Entry Number: 1382017 4 Listed Building Entry Number: 1382023 attention to the desirability of preserving the setting of these LBs and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The special interest and significance of the CA is largely derived from its early origins as a mediaeval settlement. The appeal site falls within a group of buildings that together comprise part of the village core including the church, public house and a range of typical residential and commercial buildings that form the character of this rural settlement. The vacant condition of the appeal site does not contribute to its significance. The addition of three dwellings which are of a design that is sympathetic to local character and history would have a neutral effect on, and would therefore preserve, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

No 13 [site address] ([address]) dates to the early 19th century and is of modest domestic proportions. Its significance is aesthetic and relates to its simple composition of sash windows and canted double height bay window feature. Its setting is typical of this central location, being at back of pavement and in a dense block of development. The vacant space of the appeal site and its close proximity to this LB is currently harmful and the proposal would reinstate a built form that enclose the flank of the LB and therefore would preserve its setting.

No 20 [site address] ([address]) is located opposite the appeal site and further along the street, sitting adjacent to the church. It is 18th century with 19th century additions, with brick construction to the street and timber framing to the rear. Therefore, unlike No 13 it is earlier and vernacular in its appearance. Its significance reflects the rural character of the area and the earlier less dense spacing around buildings. The existing vacant condition of the appeal site is less harmful to the setting of No 20, however the proposal would strengthen the form and enclosure of the street and thereby preserve its setting.

The chancel of the Church of [name], along with other limited aspects of the churchyard including its railings, terminates the end of [site address] . Both the chancel (1847) and railings (early to mid-19th century) are later additions to this medieval site and are limited in their contribution to its significance. The angled positioning of the church in conjunction with the dense trees that surround it reduce the extent of the contribution of [site address] to its setting. The vacant appearance of the appeal site is a minor contributor to the setting of the church complex and has a negligible negative impact. Nonetheless, the proposal would restore the form of the street on the approach to the church and would preserve its setting.

[name] 20, the [address] is also 18th century with later additions and partly faces into the churchyard. Its significance is found, in part, through its contribution to an earlier period of the settlement’s evolution. Its size and uniform Georgian proportions elevate its communal status within Wellesbourne. Its setting is curtailed to the end of [site address] and the very narrow perspective of [address], along with the church yard. It sits on the same side of [site address] to the appeal site and therefore the vacant site has a limited harmful impact on its setting. The setting would be preserved by the proposals infilling of this existing gap on the approach to this listed building.

The proposal would not harm the significance of the designated heritage assets. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issues.

My attention has been drawn to appeal decision ref 6001200 which considered matters concerning the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook. The main issue in this appeal is privacy not outlook and therefore that appeal decision weighs neither for nor against my conclusion on that main issue.

I acknowledge that neighbours have raised a number of concerns including in respect of parking, public transport reliability and overdevelopment. Furthermore, concerns over the impact to the commercial premises at [address] and inaccuracies relating to those premises in the annotations on the plans have been brought to my attention.

There is no dispute between the Council and appellant on these matters, and I have no substantive evidence before me that would lead me to an alternative conclusion. In respect a preference that the previous application for two houses should be implemented, this remains an extant scheme and would not be prejudiced by this decision.

The Council has suggested a set of conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and the relevant statutes, and have accordingly amended the wording in certain conditions proposed by the Council without altering their aim.

In addition to the standard time condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, in the interest of certainty (2).

A condition is necessary requiring materials to be submitted and approved by the Council in order to integrate the appearance of the proposed houses with that of the surrounding area (3). To ensure that the development is satisfactorily integrated with the surrounding environment a condition is imposed concerning landscaping (4). In the interest of sustainability, I impose a condition ensuring that the provisions within the [name] are adhered to (5). To ensure that the living conditions of future occupants and neighbouring occupants is preserved, I impose a condition removing domestic permitted development rights (6). Finally, a condition is imposed to help sustain local wildlife through the implementation of bird nests (7).

The Council requested a condition be imposed that obscure glazed the rear windows of the houses. As discussed above, these windows are considered to be positioned at a satisfactory distance and position from neighbouring habitable room windows and therefore there is no justification to impose such a condition.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 2327-SLP1 (Site location and site block plans), 2327-PL.02B (Proposed site plan, floor plans and elevations) and 2327-PL.03.A (Proposed street scene).

No development above ground level shall take place until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include:  a statement setting out the design objectives and how these will be delivered;  planting plans and schedules indicating the location, number, species, density, form and size of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting;  existing landscape features such as trees, hedges, shrubs and ponds which are to be retained and/or removed, accurately plotted;  location, type and materials to be used for hard surfacing including permeable paving, and use within tree [name], including specifications and details of manufacturer, type and design, colour and bonding pattern where appropriate;  the position, design, materials, means of construction of all site enclosures and boundary treatments;  car parking layout and any other vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation areas;  a timetable for the implementation of the soft and hard landscaping scheme. There shall be no excavation or raising or lowering of levels within the prescribed root protection areas of retained trees. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is first occupied in accordance with the agreed implementation programme.

Prior to first use of the development hereby permitted, the sustainability measures set out within the supporting '[name] shall be incorporated into the design of the development and/or site layout as relevant. Thereafter, the approved sustainability measures shall be retained and maintained.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) and Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development other than that authorised by this permission shall take place within the curtilage of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted

Prior to the progression of the development hereby permitted above slab level, full details of at least two nesting provisions for swifts within the dwellings, along with a timetable for their instillation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the nesting provisions shall be installed and retained in accordance with the approved details.