Appeal 6004068

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline form with landscaping reserved for subsequent approval. Access, appearance, layout and scale are matters for determination at this stage. Accordingly, I have assessed the proposal on this basis.

In the interest of accuracy, the site location and description of development in the banner heading is based on the decision notice.

The appellant submitted revised plans during the appeal process. These include drawing nos 1097_13a, 1097_14a and 1097_16. The revised drawings include the proposed street elevation and minor amendments such as a clearer illustration of existing boundary treatments including the tree to the rear of the neighbouring properties on [address]. I find that the amendments are merely clarificatory and have not materially altered the proposal.

On this basis, I am satisfied that it would not be prejudicial to the Council and neighbouring residents to include drawing nos 1097_13a, 1097_14a and 1097_16 in my decision-making, and it is therefore my conclusion that the proposed revisions shown on these drawings should be accepted. The revised plans have therefore formed part of my assessment of the appeal scheme.

Following the submission of the appeal, the appellant provided an amended signed [name] (UU) securing a range of infrastructure contributions associated with the development. I have taken that obligation into account in considering the Council’s third reason for refusal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook; and • whether the proposal would provide adequate contributions for off-site infrastructure.

The appeal site comprises a vacant sloping plot on the eastern side of [address] within an established urban residential area characterised predominantly by Victorian terraced housing. The surrounding streetscape displays a mix of two and three storey dwellings with narrow frontages, painted render and brick façades, pitched roofs and a stepped building line responding to the street’s pronounced topography. Whilst there is some variation in architectural detailing and scale across the wider area, the prevailing character remains that of traditional terraced development of generally modest proportions.

I recognise that the scheme has evolved from the previously refused scheme1 and that meaningful attempts have been made to respond to earlier concerns relating to design and townscape impact. In particular, the introduction of a stepped mansard roof form represents a clear improvement over the more uniform flat-roofed appearance of the earlier scheme. The stepping of the roofscape assists in responding to the site’s changing land levels and introduces a more varied silhouette within the street scene. Similarly, the use of vertically proportioned windows, rendered façades and segmented roof forms seeks to draw reference from surrounding Victorian development without resorting to direct replication. In these respects, I do not share the Council’s view that the proposal is wholly unsympathetic to its context or fundamentally poor in architectural terms.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s arguments that contemporary design approaches need not replicate historic architectural styles in order to achieve contextual compatibility, together with the references to other modern flatted developments elsewhere within Dover. I agree that local and national policy do not require pastiche design or strict architectural imitation. Modern interventions within historic urban environments can, where appropriately handled, successfully coexist alongside older built form. The examples cited by the appellant demonstrate that contemporary forms, materials and detailing have been accepted elsewhere within the district.

However, each proposal must be assessed within its own specific context. In this case, notwithstanding the improvements made and the positive aspects of the design approach, I find that the overall scale and massing of the proposal would still exceed what this site could comfortably accommodate. Although the stepped roof form reduces the perceived bulk of the building, the development would 1 Planning application ref 23/00145 nevertheless read as an uncharacteristically large and assertive form of development within this section of the street.

In particular, the northern extent of the building, closest to the rear of properties on [address], would retain substantial height and bulk at the point where sensitivity to enclosure and visual dominance is greatest. Whilst the ridge height of the southern side elevation would broadly relate to No [address] and that the building steps with the site topography, the proposal would still appear excessively tall towards its northern end. The appellant states that the proposed building would be close in form to the scheme that was approved in 2018, however the comparison image shown on page 34 of the appeal statement highlights that the current scheme would clearly be taller and wider. The height difference of one storey is not insignificant. The extent of built form in this location would erode the more open transitional character presently experienced between [address] and the rear plots of the [address] properties.

Due to its scale and height, the proposed building would also appear as a dominant form of development when compared to the adjacent two-storey properties on the opposite side of [address].

Furthermore, whilst the overall roof composition is adequate, other aspects of the elevational treatment are less convincing. The principal frontage would display a repetitive and somewhat planar arrangement of fenestration lacking the depth, articulation and detailing characteristic of the surrounding Victorian townscape. The largely uniform window pattern and limited façade modulation would result in an appearance that, despite the stepped form above, would remain visually monotonous across the length of the elevation.

The rear elevation would appear more overtly apartment-block in character. The cantilevered upper elements and extensive glazed balconies would introduce a visually bulky, unbalanced and comparatively stark contemporary form that would sit uncomfortably against the more traditional context surrounding the site. In my view, the top-floor balconies attached to the mansard roof would also be awkward features that would not harmonise well with the building.

Drawing these matters together, I find that although the proposal demonstrates several positive design responses and represents an improvement over the previous scheme, its scale, northern massing and certain aspects of its architectural treatment would nevertheless result in a form of development that would appear overly dominant and insufficiently integrated within its immediate context.

For these reasons, the proposal would therefore have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policies SP4 and PM1 of the Dover District Local Plan2 (the ‘Local Plan’) insofar as they seek to ensure that proposals are well-designed and appropriately scaled.

The properties at Nos 111-115 and [address] lie to the north of the appeal site. Their rear elevations face towards the site and include a number of habitable room windows, together with lower ground accommodation and rear 2 Dover District Council Local Plan to 2040, adopted October 2024 patios or garden areas. Due to the local topography, those neighbouring properties and their rear amenity areas sit at a noticeably lower level than the appeal site. As a result, the relationship would not be experienced simply as one between buildings of comparable height on level ground.

The appeal proposal would introduce a substantial amount of built form near the northern section of the appeal site. Although the building would step down with the slope of [address], the northern elevation would still retain considerable height and mass when seen from the lower rear windows and outdoor spaces of the [address] properties. In those views, the development would be perceived as an elevated and continuous built form occupying a presently more open outlook.

The existing site is untidy and overgrown, and I do not attribute positive visual quality to its current condition. However, the absence of substantial built form on this part of the site presently provides a degree of spatial relief for neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would materially intensify that relationship by replacing the existing open character of the site with a substantial permanent built form of notable height and depth.

The separation distances would avoid a directly cramped or back-to-back relationship, and I do not find that the proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking. I have also had regard to the submitted daylight and sunlight evidence, together with the reduced height of the northern flank when compared with the previously dismissed proposal. I also recognise that the surrounding rear environment is urban in character and already contains relatively close relationships between buildings.

However, the main concern in this case is not one of unacceptable loss of daylight, sunlight or overlooking. Rather, it relates to the effect of the proposal’s overall scale and elevated position on the outlook and the sense of enclosure experienced from the neighbouring rear-facing properties. Compliance with BRE daylight and sunlight guidance does not in itself demonstrate that a development would avoid an overbearing or dominant relationship.

Outlook and sense of enclosure are not determined by separation distances alone. The elevated position of the appeal site, the number of rear-facing windows and lower-level outdoor spaces affected, and the extent of built mass towards the northern part of the development would combine to create a materially more enclosed and overbearing outlook for neighbouring occupiers.

The existing mature tree and vegetation close to the northern boundary would soften the relationship to some extent in present conditions. However, the tree appears to be outside the appellant’s control, and its long-term retention cannot reasonably be relied upon as mitigation. In any event, landscaping or vegetation would not overcome the underlying built relationship created by the height, depth and position of the proposed building.

I have carefully considered the appellant’s comparison with the approved Coombe Valley Road development. The appellant states that the rear façade of that four-storey flatted development sits around 16m from the rear façades of neighbouring two to three storey period properties, and that the appeal proposal’s side elevation would be shorter in length than the Coombe Valley Road development. However, the circumstances are not directly comparable. The submitted section drawings indicate different land level relationships between the appeal site and the neighbouring [address] properties. In this case, the appeal site occupies a noticeably elevated position relative to the neighbouring rear-facing windows, patios and lower ground accommodation. Those level differences materially influence how the proposal would be perceived from neighbouring properties and intensify the sense of enclosure arising from the development.

Furthermore, whilst the appellant relies on measurements and overlay comparisons relating to the Coombe Valley Road scheme, I have not undertaken a site visit to that development and am therefore unable to decisively compare the spatial and visual relationship between that scheme and its neighbouring built form. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the Coombe Valley Road development provides a directly comparable example or demonstrates that the relationship proposed in this appeal would provide acceptable living conditions.

For these reasons, the proposal would result in an unduly dominant and enclosing form of development when viewed from the rear of Nos 111-115 and [address]. The proposal would therefore cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook, sense of enclosure and overbearing impact. It would conflict with Policy PM2 of the Local Plan insofar as it seeks to ensure that all new residential development is compatible with neighbouring buildings and does not lead to unacceptable living

The Council’s third reason for refusal relates to the absence of a completed planning obligation securing the necessary infrastructure contributions arising from the development. In particular, the Council’s Statement of Case confirmed that whilst the contributions requested by Kent County Council and the NHS were accepted in principle, the previously submitted unilateral undertaking failed to secure the required [name] contribution pursuant to Policy SP12 of the Local Plan.

The appellant has subsequently submitted a signed updated unilateral undertaking. This secures financial contributions towards secondary education, SEN provision, community learning, integrated children’s services, library services, social care, waste services, NHS provision and the [name] contribution of £63,250. The agreement also omits the previously included SPA/SAMMS contribution following confirmation that the site falls outside the relevant zone of influence.

I note that the submitted undertaking contains certain drafting inconsistencies. In particular, it refers to the previous planning application reference 23/00145 and a development comprising 52 flats, whereas the appeal proposal relates to application reference 24/01161 and seeks outline permission for 50 flats. These discrepancies create uncertainty regarding the development to which the obligation relates and the extent to which the contributions would be secured in connection with the appeal proposal.

Furthermore, whilst the obligation secures a range of infrastructure contributions, it does not make provision for any contribution towards open space as required by Policy PM3 of the Local Plan. The appellant has stated they have no objections to such obligations but that the Council have not provided any indication of what the proposed open space contribution should be. I note that the Council do not seem to have addressed this matter. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that such mitigation is unnecessary or that the proposal would otherwise comply with the requirements of Policy PM3.

Consequently, on the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that the necessary infrastructure contributions would be adequately secured. It would therefore conflict with Policies SP11, SP12 and PM3 of the Local Plan insofar as they seek to ensure that development proposals provide adequate infrastructure contributions.

The proposal would make efficient use of a previously developed site within the urban area of Dover. The appeal site occupies a sustainable location close to [name] railway station, public transport services, employment opportunities and a range of day-to-day facilities. These factors weigh moderately in favour of the proposal.

I also recognise that the development would provide 50 new dwellings, contributing to housing supply and helping to meet housing needs within the district. In addition, the redevelopment of the site would bring a long-vacant and underutilised parcel of previously developed land back into productive use and would be likely to generate economic benefits through construction activity and future expenditure by residents.

The appellant further highlights the energy efficiency credentials of the development, including the incorporation of renewable energy measures and biodiversity enhancements. These are positive attributes of the scheme and attract some limited weight in its favour.

However, whilst I have afforded weight to these considerations, they do not outweigh my findings regarding the harm that the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

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.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.