Appeal 6004083

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans were submitted alongside the appeal. The amendments included the section plans and rights of lights plans now showing the boundary fences of the properties situated along [address] and correcting the roof layout on the site plan.

This new information would not evolve the proposal or fundamentally change it from what was originally under consideration by the Council. Furthermore, the Council has had the opportunity to comment upon these documents as part of the appeal. I am therefore satisfied that there are no procedural or substantive reasons not to accept this information. I have made my decision on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of: • the occupiers of [address] and [address] with specific regard to outlook; and • the future occupiers of the development with specific regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises a single storey commercial building positioned to the rear of the plot with a front yard space. The building is single storey in stature with a mono-pitched roof set at a slight angle meaning the eaves to the rear is set at a lower level than the front.

The appeal site is situated in a predominantly residential area with the garden areas of [address] and [address] situated within immediate proximity to the rear of the appeal site, only separated by a very narrow path.

The appeal proposal would result in the addition of built form above the existing roof to accommodate residential accommodation. It has been designed in a mansard style roof. I have been provided with a range of different measurements over the proposed increase in height of the extension, with the appellant contending it would be 1.70m and the Council 2.40m1. The difference in measurements appears to have arisen from the appellant taking the measurements from the topographical survey.

Even taking the appellants measurement of a 1.70m increase in height, owing to the long width of the building and its immediate proximity to the neighbours this increase in height would lead to a considerable amount of bulk, scale and massing above ground level. This would result in an enclosing and overbearing effect on the rear garden areas of [address] and [address] which would detrimentally harm the outlook of these occupiers.

Whilst the appellant has submitted rights to light plans which shows the 25 degree BRE test in relation to light would be complied with, this does not alter my findings relating to the loss of outlook created by the overbearing and enclosing effect of the development.

The appellant has suggested that a condition could be used to limit the maximum height. However, even if the height was conditioned to that measured by the appellant, this would not mitigate the harm identified. The appellant has also suggested that a condition could be used to increase the setback and introduce design features to lessen the visual impact of the rear elevation. However, these suggestions would not adequately overcome the harm resulting from the bulk, scale and massing introduced by the proposal at such close proximity to the boundary of these neighbours.

The proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of [address] and [address]. The development would therefore conflict with Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) (HDPF). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development is designed to avoid unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

It is proposed that the ground floor is retained as commercial floor space. The appellant contends that the use of materials compliant with building regulations for sound insulation, separated access and parking, legal restrictions on the commercial operations and the use of conditions would prevent an adverse impact on the living conditions of future occupiers.

However, no detailed evidence has been provided which establishes the level of noise and disturbance generated by the retained commercial element or the potential mitigation measures that would be required. Without such information, the evidence does not show what the impact on the proposed residential use would be. Given the very close proximity of the retained commercial use to the 1 Appellant final comments p.1 and Council Statement of Case p.1. proposed residential element, without such evidence I cannot be certain that mitigation would be effective at ensuring a suitable living environment for future occupiers that is not harmfully compromised by noise and disturbance. In these circumstances, it would therefore not be reasonable to leave such details to the condition discharge stage or rely on legal restrictions.

Therefore, the evidence does not show that the proposal would not result in adverse impacts on the living conditions of the future occupiers by way of undue noise and disturbance.

The development would therefore conflict with Policy 32 of the HDPF. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development is of a high quality and inclusive design that provides a functional and safe environment.

The appeal site is situated within the [name] where additional development could have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Arun Valley SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites.

The Council conducted an Appropriate Assessment and found that the proposal would not adversely impact the integrity of the Arun Valley habitats site alone, or in combination. [name] was to allow the appeal, I would be required to undertake my own appropriate assessment. However, since I am dismissing it for other reasons, I do not need to consider this further since it does not impact the outcome of the appeal.

[name] note the proposal was subject to pre-application discussions, I am mindful that this advice is informal and not binding on any future decision the Council may make once a proposal has been subject to the formal planning process.

The proposed development is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the HDPF, by virtue of the harm to the living conditions of nearby neighbours and to future occupiers of the development. However, the Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The Council’s officer report confirms it has a supply of 1.0 years, which has not been challenged by the appellant. I see no reason to take a different view.

The provisions of paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) are therefore engaged. Footnote 8 confirms in these circumstances, the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date. Paragraph 232 of the Framework confirms due weight should be given to policies, according to their consistency with the Framework.

The importance of achieving well-designed development is a key aspect of sustainable development, as set out in section 12 of the Framework, where it is clear at paragraph 139 that development which is not well designed should be refused. Paragraph 135(f) promotes health and well-being in developments and to achieve a high standard of amenity for future users. Whilst paragraph 124 of the Framework seeks to make effective use of land, this is to be achieved while also safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Paragraph 198 seeks to ensure that development avoids noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life. Therefore, [name] 32 and 33 are consistent with the Framework. Based on the harms identified, the conflict with these policies carries significant weight against the development.

Overall, the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the above-mentioned paragraphs of the Framework.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, including through small and medium schemes. The proposal would make use of brownfield land in a sustainable urban area to provide one new dwelling, contributing towards the Council’s housing land supply. It would also lead to a small and time limited economic benefit during the construction phase, as well as some limited social and economic benefits resulting from future occupiers. Sustainable features such as solar panels and green roof areas would also be incorporated. However, given the small scale of the proposal these matters at most attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

It is also stated that the proposal would ensure the ongoing viability of the commercial business. However, very limited evidence has been provided regarding the viability of the business, and it has not been demonstrated that it is reliant upon this specific proposal. In these circumstances, I can only afford this limited weight.

As such, the adverse effects of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.