Appeal 6004011

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the Decision Notice of the Council as it describes the development in a more accurate manner than on the Application Form. Whilst there is no record of a formal agreement to the change in front of me, given that the appellant has used this updated description within their appeal statement I am satisfied that neither party is prejudiced by this course of action.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] and 230 and [address] with regards to outlook and privacy; • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers with regards to garden size; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposal on the public footway.

The proposed development would appear as an end terrace dwelling sited on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The proposal would bring sizeable built form noticeably closer to the front elevations of Nos. 230 and [address]. Nos. 230 and 232 comprise a modest pair of semi-detached houses, their simple form means that principal windows are on the front and rear facing elevations. Each property has a projecting bay window at ground floor level on the front elevation. The front elevation of Nos. 230 and 232 would broadly align with and directly face the proposed 2 storey side elevation. Save for two windows, this elevation would be largely blank. In comparison to the existing relatively spacious outlook, this would adversely alter the outlook from the ground and first floor windows of these properties. The proximity, extent and form of the large 2 storey elevation would appear oppressive and overbearing when viewed from both Nos. 230 and 232 and would significantly harm the outlook for the existing occupiers.

It is acknowledged that similar close relationships exist along [address] and the surrounding streets. However, these are longstanding relationships that existing occupiers would have accepted when they first moved into their properties. It does not follow that it represents a high standard of amenity for future users as stipulated by paragraph 135f of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Concerns have also been raised over a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties, specifically Nos. 91, 230 and 232. There would be a habitable window at ground and first floor level in the side elevation of the rear wing of the proposed development that would allow direct views towards the front elevations of Nos. 230 and 232. Given the close relationship and the lack of screening, this would cause a significant loss of privacy for the occupiers of these properties, which would compound the harm to their living conditions.

No windows are proposed at first floor level on the side elevation of the rear wing that would face No 91. The windows on the rear elevation on the proposed dwelling, would provide only oblique views into the garden of No 91, such a relationship is commonplace between many attached dwellings and is not unduly harmful. Nevertheless, this does not negate the harm I have identified in relation to this main issue.

I find that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 230 and 232. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy 8 (e) of the [name] (NNJCS). The policy seeks to ensure quality of life and safer and healthier communities by protecting amenity of neighbouring properties with regards to a variety of factors including overlooking.

The proposal would subdivide the rear garden of No 91, which would result in a garden that would be smaller than those typically found within [address]. I am not aware of any local policy that specifies minimum size standards for private amenity spaces. However, given the modest size of the individual flats they are likely to be occupied by 1 or 2 adults rather than families. With this in mind, I am satisfied there would be sufficient outdoor space for refuse storage and drying clothes. I am also satisfied that sufficient garden would be retained for the occupiers of No 91.

The proposal would create an acceptable living environment for the proposed occupiers. This is in accordance with policy 8(e) of the NNJCS. Amongst other matters the policy seeks to protect the amenity of future occupiers.

[address] and the surrounding roads are characterised by 2 storey terraced dwellings which sit on modest plots. Properties on [address] generally have no front gardens. The appeal property, [site address] is somewhat of an anomaly in the street as it is set back from the street frontage and is a notably wider plot. This corner property is secured by boundary fencing along [address].

The proposed dwelling would be constructed on a significant proportion of the existing garden of No 91. The proposed 2 storey dwelling would be built in line with and attached to the existing dwelling creating a new end terrace. The new dwelling would have a subservient rear wing which is typical feature of surrounding terraced dwellings. The dwelling would also be constructed of matching materials with the same ridge height and pitch. I am therefore satisfied that the dwelling would sit comfortably within its surroundings maintaining the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has commented that open corner plots are characteristic of the area. However, on my site it was clear that the majority of corner plots were built up close to the public highway in this tight network of terraced streets. The existing rear garden is hidden from view behind a wooden fence and does not noticeably add to the appearance of the locality.

The Council’s refusal reason makes specific reference for the need for the development to be a set back a minimum of 600m from the public highway boundary. Given that there are many examples on [address] and the surrounding roads where there are properties built up to the highway boundary, I am satisfied that no such offset is required to maintain the character and appearance of the locality.

I find that the proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with policy 8(d) of the NNJCS. Amongst other matters, this policy seeks to create a distinctive local character by responding to the site’s immediate and wider context and local character to create new streets, spaces and buildings which draw on the best of that local character without stifling innovation.

Concerns have been raised by the local highway authority that the development would overhang the highway in terms of both open windows and guttering. The plans show on the [address] elevation that the windows would slide rather than open outwards. Given that only one elevation is built up to the highway edge, I am confident that guttering could be positioned so that it would not overhang the public highway.

Paragraph 56 of the Framework states that local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions. In these circumstances, I consider that the appellant’s suggestion that this matter could be addressed by condition is a sound one.

I am therefore satisfied that the development would not block the public footway or adversely impact upon its users. The proposal therefore accords with policy 8 (b) of the NNJCS. Amongst other matters the policy intends to make safe and pleasant streets and spaces by prioritising the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and resisting developments that would prejudice highway safety.

The proposal would provide two self-build units. Encouragement is given to such development in national policy and consequently attracts positive weight in the overall balance. However, I have no mechanism before me, for example a Section 106 agreement, by which this could be secured. In the absence of a mechanism to secure the status of the development as self-build this limits the positive weight that can be attributed to the delivery of self-build housing. Moreover, I cannot be certain that the development would be exempt from the mandatory BNG requirements. However, as this latter issue is unlikely to be determinative given my other findings, I have not pursued the matter further with the parties.

The appellant has raised some criticism over how the application was handled by the local planning authority, specifically around their unwillingness to accept any amended plans. However, in reaching my decision I have been concerned only with the planning merits of this case.

Set against the significant harm to the living conditions of existing occupiers identified, are the benefits of the scheme. The proposal would deliver two additional self-build houses, contributing to housing supply supporting the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The development would also provide economic benefits during both the construction phase and in future occupation. However, given the proposal is for just 2 dwellings, the benefits would be modest in extent. Whether considered individually or cumulatively these benefits do not outweigh the significant level of permanent harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.