Appeal 6003830

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, having regard to outlook; • The effect of the proposal on the character of the area; and • The effect of the proposal on highway safety in the area, having regard to parking provision.

Bedroom two of the proposed six bedroom house of multiple occupancy (HMO) would be small, and the submitted drawing indicate that there would be little space with a bed and cupboard in place. This is a ground floor room and would have a modestly sized window. However, the outlook from this would be over a small patch of hardstanding that would be largely enclosed by two storey walls.

The window would allow some natural light to reach this bedroom. However, this would be limited by the general sense of enclosure at this part of the building. Although not a reason in itself to refuse planning permission in this case, when considered in combination with other factors, such as its size and confined outlook, proposed bedroom 2 would be extremely gloomy and not a pleasant place for future users to reside.

The only communal space for the future occupants of this HMO would be the rear kitchen/living room. While this habitable room would be a reasonable size, with windows limited to the side, the outlook from this room would be dominated by the extended side of the neighbouring property.

That said, there would be some source of natural light from these openings. Moreover, the bleak outlook from this communal room would be off-set somewhat from the reasonable outlook that future occupants would have in proposed bedrooms 1 and 3 – 6. However, this would not be the case for bedroom 2. Not only would the future occupants experience unpleasant living conditions in that bedroom, but they would get little respite from these poor conditions, when using the communal room that would have a very restricted outlook. The combination of these factors would result in poor living conditions for the future occupants of that proposed bedroom.

My attention is drawn to a prior approval permitting two dwellings at the appeal property. The approved ground floor drawing of that permitted development has a very similar kitchen/dining room to that before me in this appeal. However, under that extant scheme, the habitable room would be part of a single dwelling, and the approved drawings shows a living room at the front of the property. Although the approved rear kitchen will have a limited outlook similar to that proposed in this case, the front living room of that dwelling will have a reasonable outlook that provides a sense of space for future occupants. The prior approval permission provides satisfactory living conditions and is distinctly different from this appeal proposal in this regard. It has not altered my findings for this reason.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, having regard to outlook. In this respect the proposal would conflict with Policy PSP8 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (PSPP). This Policy states that proposals will be acceptable provided that they do not create unacceptable living conditions.

The appeal property forms the middle of a short terrace, comprising commercial units. Although it is currently vacant, its shop front style, at street level, is retained. As such it appears an integral part of a local parade of shops.

While the property fronts a dualled section of [address], it is set back and has a separate access road such that it appears very much part of the residential estate to the west of this busy main road. Although its vacant state is a detracting feature, its traditional form fits with the architectural aesthetic of this urban fringe.

In the wider setting, there is a parade of shops on the opposite side of the dual carriageway. This section of the road therefore appears the focus as a local centre. However, unlike the row of shops opposite, the appeal property is a local parade which is divided by [address]. This part of the street scene also includes other commercial units that differ in style from the traditional row of shops. Therefore, the character and appearance of the immediate area is somewhat mixed and varied.

The change of use to two HMOs would result in the loss of the existing shop front detail. This detail would be replaced by front doors and windows with a domestic style, and this change would occur in the middle of the parade of commercial uses. Although the scheme may resolve the sense of dereliction at the property, these distinctly domestic changes would visually disrupt the current design coherency of the terrace.

Given the mixed character that prevails in this locale, the harmful visual effect of this proposal would be limited. But nonetheless there would be an adverse visual effect on the character of the area albeit at the lower end of the spectrum of harm.

The extant prior approval may permit change to a residential use. However, the approved drawings of that permission show that the existing shopfront detail will largely be retained. The visual effect of that permitted development will therefore be significantly less disruptive to the character of the area than would be the case under this scheme.

In light of this, I find that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the character of the area. In this regard the proposal would not accord with Policies CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] ([name]) and Policy of PSP1 of the PSPP. [name] collectively, amongst other matters, seek the highest possible standards of design.

Some of the units comprising the parade, which include the appeal property, have been extended to the rear. Therefore, there is limited off-street parking for these units. In terms of on-street parking spaces, as described, the appeal property is accessed by a stretch of the [address] which is physically separated from the dual carriageway of that ‘A’ road. There is a lay-by along this stretch of road, at the front of the property, that can accommodate at least five vehicles. There is also four angled on-street parking bays, located at the junction of [address]. Also, a similar amount of on-street parking is available for the shops north of the [address] junction.

The road is configured such that it has a distinct secondary character despite being adjacent to a main arterial road. Therefore, users of the units fronting this part of the road can manoeuvre into the on- street parking spaces without undue pressure or risk from other road users.

The dwellings to the rear of the appeal property generally have space to park cars off the street, and [name], to the south of the site, also has some off-street customer parking. Therefore, not only is there reasonable on-street parking available in the area, but commercial and residential uses seem well served with off-street options. Also relevant to this matter, as part of the urban fringe of Bristol, this property has reasonable access to public transport links to the city centre and rail services. Future occupants would not necessarily need to be dependant on a car to access a good range of services.

Providing accommodation for up to 11 individuals living independently, this change of use would result in a concentrated residential use at the property. The submitted drawings indicate that there would be no off-street parking provision for future occupants. Therefore, if future occupants had cars, they would have to use on-street parking provision in this area.

The Council contend that under this scheme there would be a shortfall of six off-street parking spaces. Addressing this, Policy PSP16 of the PSPP requires 0.5 spaces per bedroom of HMOs requiring planning permission. However, this Policy also states that this can be provided within the curtilage, or alternatively through submission of appropriate evidence of the availability of on street parking during evenings and weekends.

A parking survey has been submitted with this appeal, which was not part of the evidence on which the Council made its original decision. This survey seeks to address a reason for refusal so does not raise new issues. Also, it does not propose any significant changes to the original scheme. Moreover, interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on this relatively small new document in this appeal process. Therefore, to take this into account in this decision does not result in procedural unfairness in my view.

This evidence appears to satisfy the requirements of PSP16 of the PSPP. In any event, given the existing local parking arrangements already described, along with the relatively modest scale of what is being proposed in this case, and the favourable public transport options open to those living in this area, I find that the likely small increase in demand on local parking spaces, resulting from the development, could be safely accommodated without adversely impacting the highway conditions in this area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development should only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. For the reasons stated, the proposal would not be harmful in this regard.

Therefore, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety in the area, having regard to parking provision. In this respect, the proposal would accord with Policy CS8 of the [name] and Policies PSP16 and PSP39 of the PSPP. [name] collectively, amongst other matters, require that development provide parking in accordance with the Council’s parking standards, and, state that priority will be given to providing the users of new development with a range of travel options other than the private car.

As already set out, the appeal property is in a short parade of units and along with the shops north of the [address], they form part of a local centre. Policy CS13 of the [name] seeks to prevent the loss of smaller scale employment uses in the context of the pressure to meet housing targets. This Policy requires, for proposals seeking change of use, that it is clearly demonstrated that all reasonable attempts have failed to secure an economic re-use.

Regarding the sites current use, and therefore the relevance of this policy in this case, I find no compelling evidence that the prior approval for the change of use to two dwellings has been implemented. Therefore, although the appeal units are currently vacant, it seem they could nonetheless be used for employment uses. This local policy remains relevant for this

The supporting text of Policy CS13 clarifies proposals that change employment uses should be supported by a statement and market appraisal. Such evidence does not appear to be submitted in this case, and the proposal is inconsistent with this local policy in this regard. Policy CS13 also adopts a sequential approach, with preference for a mixed use scheme before residential only. I find little evidence that this has been a consideration in this case.

Related to this matter, Policy CS25 supports, amongst other matters, proposals for new amenities at existing local centres. Also, Policy CS14 of the [name] seeks to protect the vitality and viability of existing centres, in recognition of their retail, service and social functions. [address] is identified as a local centre/parade for the purpose of this policy. Under this appeal scheme, two commercial units in a local parade would be lost, and this would be significant.

However, as already set out, this existing use will be changed under the prior approval permission. Although this permission is yet to be implemented, no compelling evidence is advanced that the permitted change of use will not go ahead if this appeal was dismissed. I attach considerable weight to this as a legitimate fall-back position. Regardless of the outcome of this appeal, it seems that there is a high chance that the existing employment uses will nonetheless be replaced by dwellings at the appeal property. In turn, the weight that the conflict with local employment policies attracts in this case is very much reduced by this factor.

The appeal property is bounded at the rear to the side of [address]. As already indicated, the rear of the appeal property has been extended. However, there is still a reasonable amount of separation between the properties, and this would not change under this scheme. The rear of No 1 can be seen from the upper floor of the appeal property but given the closeknit linear pattern of residential development in this area, occupants of No 1 already experience some overlooking when using their rear garden.

The first floor window of the appeal property, closest to No 1’s side boundary, would serve as a bedroom in this scheme. This sizeable window would remain largely as it is currently. Therefore, future occupants of this bedroom would have an outlook towards the rear garden of No 1 and the single storey extension at that property.

It is understood that this upper room of the appeal property previously functioned as an office, and the pattern of use would therefore change under this residential proposal. However, future occupants of the bedroom would not be able to look directly into the rear habitable room of No 1 given the angle of the respective buildings. Also, the existing reasonable amount of separation between the properties would ensure that occupants of No 1 would not feel overlooked in a manner that would harmfully affect their current levels of privacy.

The window of the proposed bedroom would also look over the rear garden of No 1. But vegetation on the shared boundary ensures some privacy to occupiers when they use that part of their dwelling.

In any event, this upper floor room of the appeal property would be altered to a bedroom under the prior approval permission. [name] allowed this appeal, the arrangement would be similar to that which is already permitted at the property. For the reasons stated, I find that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, having regard to privacy. The proposal would not conflict with Policy PSP8 of the PSPP with regards this matter.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply (HLS) and therefore the provisions of paragraph 11 of the Framework are relevant in this case.

As described, a change of use is already permitted at the property. However, setting this aside this proposal would intensify the residential use and add to the mix of dwelling types in this area. This would be a small benefit in terms of the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes and to the local housing mix. Nevertheless, given the HLS shortfall, this is a significant benefit.

This is a small windfall in a settlement, which could be built quickly, and these factors attract great weight. The appeal site is also well-related to services and public transport options, a factor that weighs considerably in favour of this development at this location.

Substantial weight should be attached to the value of using brownfield land within settlements. However, the support for this matter is qualified, proposals should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. I find this proposal would provide unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupants; substantial harm would occur under this scheme.

Indeed, the Framework requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. This proposal is not well designed in this respect, and the Framework indicates that development that is not well designed should be refused.

Consequently, even if I accept that the benefits outweigh the harm to the character of the area in this case, I find that the substantial adverse impact, with regards poor living conditions for future users, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the considerable benefits outlined above, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

Attention is drawn to Policies PSP31 and PSP32 of the PSPP. These concern proposals for retail and main town centre uses, neither of which are relevant in this case.

For the reasons stated above and having regard to the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, the appeal should be dismissed.