Appeal 6003868

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

An application for costs was made by [name] and [name] of YHL Property Limited against Guildford Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that the Council would have refused planning permission had it made a decision on the proposal for reasons relating to character and appearance, living conditions and the effect of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). I have had regard to the parties’ submissions in establishing the main issues which I set out below.

The main issues are:  the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area;  the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings, with particular regard to outlook, privacy, sunlight and outdoor space; and  whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outdoor space, outlook and daylight.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of open land bordered on 3 sides by existing built form. It is located within an area which comprises a mix of commercial and residential uses. Surrounding built form is predominantly 2 and 3 storeys in height, with buildings of a variety of architectural styles and forms present.

The proposed development would see the introduction of 2 buildings on the site. [name], located on the [address] frontage, would be 2 storeys in height and extend across the majority of the site frontage. [name], to the rear of the site, would be 3 storeys in height and extend close to the rear and side boundaries of the site. Cumulatively, built form would extend across the majority of the site, appearing from [address] as a significant extent of built form relative to the size of the plot.

[name] would appear most prominent in views from [address], by reason of its height greater than that of [name] and the adjacent built form at [address], [name] would be visible within the street scene. In combination with [name], it would emphasise the extent of built development on the site, resulting in the site appearing cramped and overdeveloped. In this regard, although the built form would be of a height broadly similar to some buildings in the surrounding area, the proposal would appear incongruous.

The appellant has put to me that the design is informed by the physical constraints of the site and its urban context, including the existing development adjacent to the site. I acknowledge that the proposed materials and contemporary detailing would respond to and complement the variety of architectural styles evident in the surrounding built form. Nevertheless, the proposal would fail to integrate appropriately with the surrounding built environment by reason of its overly cramped appearance, extending close to all site boundaries and adjacent built form.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, it would be contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy D4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies (adopted 2023) (the DMP). In summary, this policy seeks high quality design and proposals which respond positively to surrounding context.

From the plans before me and my observations on site, it is likely that, due to its scale, orientation and proximity, the proposed development would reduce the levels of sunlight entering habitable rooms at [address]. Correspondence from the appellant indicates that, as a result of the siting, orientation and shape of the proposed buildings, shadows cast would be limited in duration and only affect a limited number of windows at [address]. These comments are made with reference to a shadow projection plan which is also referred to within the Council’s Officer’s Report. However, neither this plan nor any substantive assessment demonstrating that the proposal would not lead to a harmful effect on the sunlight levels reaching dwellings within [address] is before me. In the absence of such an assessment, I am not satisfied that the proposal would not result in adverse effects on the living conditions of occupiers of [address].

By reason of the proposed extent and height of built form close to [address], the proposal would also harmfully impinge upon the outlook from windows serving habitable rooms at [address]. This is irrespective of whether the proposed separation distances are not uncommon within similar urban contexts.

I do not dispute that obscure glazing and appropriate boundary treatments could address privacy concerns. Nonetheless, such mitigation would not overcome the harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in respect of loss of outlook and sunlight that would result from the proposal.

The proposal would result in the loss of the outside space currently accessible to occupiers of the host property. Consequently, the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of the host property.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings, with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and outdoor space. In this regard, the proposal fails to accord with the relevant provisions of Policy D5 of the DMP. This policy seeks, among other things, to avoid an unacceptable impact on the living environment of existing residential properties in terms of visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development and access to sunlight.

The proposed development would provide communal outdoor space for occupiers, in the form of a roof terrace located on [name]. Flat 3 would also have a private outdoor space. From the plans before me, I am not satisfied that these outdoor spaces would be appropriately sized and located so as to allow for effective and practical use by all future occupiers. Indeed, the communal garden space would be accessible by steps only, thereby limiting access for potential users. In my experience, urban developments often provide alternative forms of open space, including roof terraces. However, the existence of other developments with roof terraces does not justify the provision of a roof terrace which would have stepped access only, even if the proposed layout provides limited opportunities for ground-level outdoor space.

The private outdoor space at Flat 3 would be surrounded by built form and boundary treatments and is, consequently, unlikely to receive much direct sunlight. Moreover, it would be overlooked by the adjacent dwellings at [address]. It is, therefore, unlikely to provide a particularly desirable or usable outdoor space.

In this context, even though all dwellings would provide internal space compliant with the [name], I am not satisfied that the proposed development would provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers in respect of outdoor space.

It is likely that the outlook from the proposed dwellings would be restricted due to the proximity of the proposed development to existing buildings and boundary treatments. This would particularly be the case for the ground-floor Flat 3 which would be surrounded by built form and boundary treatments, with the resultant restricted outlook being detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers.

The information before me does not demonstrate that the layout of Flat 1 would allow for sufficient daylight to enter the habitable rooms, taking account of the subterranean nature of the living space. In this regard, I am not satisfied that Flat 1 would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers in respect of daylight.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outdoor space, outlook and daylight. As such, the proposal is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy D5 of the DMP. This policy seeks, among other things, to avoid development resulting in unacceptable living conditions for new residential properties in terms of visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development and access to daylight and to ensure all new build residential development proposals have direct access to an area of private outdoor amenity space.

The site lies within 5km of the [name]. Habitats Regulation 63(1) states that a competent authority, before deciding to give any consent or permission, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site. However, given my reasoning in respect of character and appearance and living conditions, and that the appeal is dismissed, there is, therefore, no requirement upon me in that regard. Even were I to find that the proposal was acceptable in this respect, it would be neutral in my determination of the case.

The appeal proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of occupiers of [address] and the host property. It would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. As such, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

However, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, with the Council confirming that supply currently stands at 2.98 years. In these circumstances, paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

There would be a variety of benefits to the scheme, including the provision of new housing on underutilised land in a location within the existing urban area of Guildford which benefits from good access to services and public transport and economic benefits during construction and following occupation. However, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, in this case, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, 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. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.