Appeal 6003919

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] of Centaur Estates Ltd against Woking Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been submitted which seeks to mitigate the effects of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). I will return to this matter later in the decision.

For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that the development has been carried out has not had a bearing on the decision.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the quality of living conditions for the occupiers with particular regard to the internal space at no 7a and the garden at no 7.

7 [name] was part of a semi-detached pair of dwellings. It was a wide two storey house with a single storey side addition and rear conservatory. The house was positioned more or less centrally between the front and the rear of the plot and surrounded by sizeable open space on three sides with generous gardens to the front and side and hardstanding used for parking to the rear. This would have resulted in a prominent and clear separation between the adjoining pairs of properties and an open, green setting to the house.

No 7 is part of a group of similar dwellings at nos 6b-10 which have a comparable pattern of development and layout. Many of these have modest additions, including the adjoining property at no 8, and their scale and secondary character retains the open, wrap-around gardens to these houses. The appellant states that the plot sizes are between 0.04 and 0.05 ha. They form a visually distinctive group and their layout, scale and openness make an important contribution to the clearly evident pattern of development and pleasant sense of spaciousness in the area.

Between no 6b and the junction with [address] are 5, 6 and 6a [name]. These buildings are in an obviously different style with prominent gable features, vertical emphasis and use of brick and tile as well as positioning closer to the edges of their plots. I understand that no 6 has been subdivided and includes a flat at 6a although the garden did not appear to include any separating boundary treatment. The appellant states that their plot sizes are between 0.02-0.03ha. Nevertheless, these properties are clearly different in character and distinct from the appearance of the appeal site and whilst there is a single flat, this is not so common as to be an overriding part of the character of the area.

The appeal scheme is for the conversion of the single storey side addition to no 7 to form a separate dwelling. It forms a terrace of three properties with nos 7 and 8. The plot has also been subdivided, with no [address] to its front and rear only and no 7a has a garden to the side, front and rear.

The subdivision creates two plots of 0.04ha for no 7a and 0.03ha for no 7. This results in no 7 having a notably reduced garden to the front and rear only and a much narrower plot width. Using the appellant’s figures, its curtilage is also around 100sqm smaller than other comparable houses which, taking into account the scale of these plots, is a significant reduction. Overall, it is substantially smaller than that prevailing in the area. This unacceptably erodes the pattern of development. Furthermore, the modest single storey dwelling at no 7a is noticeably smaller than those in the surrounding context. This is visually jarring against the consistent layout and scale of the houses which surround it. Together this harmfully undermines the important characteristics of adjoining buildings and land including their proportions, style, distinctive layout and pattern of development and spaciousness and visual separation between buildings. This highly visible, permanent harm to the character and appearance of the area is significant.

I understand that the extension has been in place for a number of years. Planning permission was granted in 2007 as an extension ancillary to the use of no 7 and the appellant states that the extension was built shortly after. However, this appeal seeks permission for a separate independent residential use of this part of the building as well as the subdivision of the plot. Therefore, the considerations for this appeal go beyond the built form as an extension only.

Consequently, the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such it is contrary to policies CS21 and CS24 of [name] (2012) (CS) and policy DM10 of Woking Development Management Policies DPD. Together these require development to make a positive contribution to the character of the area and townscape character and requires that development of garden land does not involve the inappropriate subdivision of curtilages and a frontage that is in keeping with the area.

The unit at 7a comprises a bedroom with shower-room ensuite and separate living/kitchen/dining room. The floor area is 32sqm and the bedroom is 10.5sqm. The Technical Housing Standards - [name] (2015) provides guidance that a 1 person 1 bedroom unit should be 37sqm, Policy CS21 of the CS requires that new development meets the needs of the occupier, amongst other things, but it does not include justification for a particular internal floor area.

The layout of the unit includes kitchen units and a breakfast bar for dining along the side and part of the front wall and the remainder of the area as living space. I observed that the bedroom was large enough for suitable storage, a bed and the ensuite has a functional layout. The overall size is below 37sqm. However, there is little else before me regarding how the layout and internal space in the property is unsuitable. On the basis of the specific arrangements in this case, it appears to be suitable for use as a 1 person 1 bedroom unit. Consequently, it meets the needs of an occupier and is in accordance with the development plan.

The garden has been subdivided, and the host property retains an area to the rear of around 80sqm which is partly laid to hardstanding, with parking and access routes. It also has an area of lawn to the front, with a pathway between the front door and a gate to [site address] , although there is no footpath on this side of the road, with a substantial hedge providing screening. Together, the dwelling has around 145sqm of outdoor space. Policy CS21 of the CS requires appropriate levels of private amenity space. The Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight Supplementary Planning Document (2022) sets out that family accommodation should have a suitable area of private garden generally no smaller than the building. Also, that private amenity space should enjoy a high degree of privacy from the street and therefore front gardens are not normally counted toward this provision.

The rear garden provides functional space which is smaller than the 85sqm footprint of the 2 storey dwelling. However, in addition, the specific considerations at this site include an area to the front where separation from passers by and planting creates a suitably private lawned area. Nor, taking into account this arrangement, is there any indication that the hedge would be likely to be removed. Consequently, there is adequate private space for family accommodation for sitting out, play and other domestic activities. Overall, although the quality of the accommodation at no 7 has reduced, it is not so limited as to result in unacceptable living conditions for these occupiers.

Therefore, the development provides suitable living conditions for the occupiers. As such, in these regards, it is in accordance with Policy CS21 of the CS, the aims of which are set out above. The lack of harm in this regard would be a neutral matter in any planning balance.

I understand that the annexe was occupied as a separate unit when the appellant purchased the property in 2021 and it is unfortunate that the appellant was unaware of its permitted use. Although there is an unsupported statement that the use had gone on for ‘some time’ prior to the purchase, there is an absence of detail such as the dates that this use occurred or any supporting evidence prior to 2021. The appellant acknowledges that they cannot provide substantive evidence to prove this. It is not my role as a S78 Inspector to determine whether a use or operation is lawful. Nevertheless, for the reasons above, I afford limited weight to the evidence that this use is lawful.

There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal scheme is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and I do not have evidence which leads me to disagree with these findings.

The Council does not have a five year housing land supply and the appellant states that it has a 4.57 year supply. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (Framework) is engaged. It requires that planning permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, when assessed against the policies within the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies.

The scheme provides one house in an accessible location along with the associated social and economic benefits of such provision in an area where there is a shortfall in the delivery of housing. It is currently occupied, and the refusal of planning permission would result in the tenant requiring alternative housing and increasing housing need. Nevertheless, taking into account the scale of the development, overall this results in important but modest benefits in this case.

On the other hand, the development is harmful to character and appearance. As such it does not secure a well designed place or make an effective use of land in this regard. For the reasons set out above, the harm is significant.

Therefore, these significant adverse effects significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits set out above when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole and having particular regard to key policies. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

The TBHSPA is a habitats site that has a high level of protection. It is designated because it provides habitat for [name], Woodlark and Nightjar. The appeal site is within 5km of the SPA and the Council find that, without any mitigation in place, in combination with other plans and projects, there is a likely significant effect on the interest features of the site from the development. Notwithstanding, there is no need to consider the implications of the appeal scheme on the protected site because it is unacceptable for other reasons.

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, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR