Appeal 6004147

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development on; • the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on a tree; and, • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to the availability of internal floorspace and access to external amenity space.

The appeal site forms part of a larger residential estate that is characterised by dwellings of varying size, form, appearance and spacing, with no one property design being predominant. The local character includes a mix of roof forms, orientation and spacing within plots, uniform build-lines, and open tree planted verges.

The proposal seeks to erect a single dwelling attached to No [site address] [site address] , an end of terrace two storey dwelling, with the subdivision of the existing front and rear gardens. The dwelling would be of a similar width and depth to No [site address] , set slightly lower in height to the attached dwellings along the short terrace.

However, the proposal would extend the terrace into a prominent and open corner space at the junction of [site address] and [address]. During my site visit I observed that in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, corner plots were largely free of development, other than modest boundary treatment or indeed hedge planting. These open spaces coupled with relatively uniform build-line are a predominant part of the character and appearance of dwellings in the area.

As such, the proposal would interrupt the established uniform extent of the build-line, resulting in a development incongruous to, and at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site.

The plans indicate the retention of an oak tree (T1) within the plot. T1 is modest in size and located towards the front of the plot, adjacent to the pedestrian and vehicular highway. It is an attractive specimen and makes a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the area, although not subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Trees on open corner plots and verges are commonplace in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. The proposed house would be located close to the tree canopy and large parts of the front garden area would be under its spread. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change.

I have no reason to believe that the tree should not exist for many more years, and no details have been submitted addressing the potential impacts, growth or proposed protection measures. However, whilst the appellant outlines that this matter could be dealt with by an appropriately worded condition, were I minded allowing this appeal, Policy DM9 requires development proposals affecting trees to be accompanied with sufficient evidence which evaluates both the immediate and long‐term impacts on existing trees. It expects applicants to fully consider and incorporate anticipated canopy spread and root growth at the design stage, ensuring that future tree development is not constrained. The policy also requires the provision high‐quality physical protection measures for retained trees, supported by appropriate construction and working methodologies, none of which are before me.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be contrary to Policies CS12 and CS32 of the [name] (2017), and Policies DM9, DM32 and DM37 of the North Somerset Development Management Policies Sites and Policies Plan (Part 1) (2016). Amongst other things, these seek to achieve a high quality design and placemaking, well designed buildings and places, demonstrate sensitivity to the local character, and the setting, and enhance the area taking into consideration the existing context, including trees, and not adversely affect the character of the area.

The Council submit that the internal floor area of the proposal is less than the minimum standard as set out in national and local policy requirements. The appellant disputes this stating that, notwithstanding the plans, the proposal is clearly designed as a three-person two-storey dwelling. However, the plans indicate parking for two motor vehicles and two cycles and whilst not conclusive, indicates the potential for occupation at a higher level.

The Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS) outlines that double or twin bedrooms must provide a floorspace of at least 11.5m2 in two-storey dwellings. The plans before me indicate bedroom 1 to be approximately 12.43m2 in area, and bedroom 2 approximately 11.51m2. Again, the plans annotate each of these rooms with a double bed and the floorspaces exceed the NDSS requirements for double or twin bedrooms in two-storey dwellings. I therefore conclude that the proposal should be considered as a four-person house. However, overall, the dwelling falls short of the total floorspace requirement for a four person dwelling of 79m2. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, the proposal would be contrary to SPP Policy DM42 which amongst other things requires new dwellings to provide good-quality living accommodation which meets the nationally described space standard.

The appellant indicates opportunities for future residential occupiers to access local areas of public open space and recreation. The Frameworks acknowledges that access to green infrastructure contributes to creating healthy, inclusive places. However, these spaces do not perform the same function as private garden spaces and their practical relationship with a dwelling for day-to-day living.

Whilst the dwelling would benefit from an area of garden space incorporating a modest patio, it would be positioned to the front of the dwelling. This space, while offering some scope for planting and greenery, would be significantly constrained in both size and function. The garden is compact, providing limited opportunities for seating, relaxation, or any meaningful sense of seclusion. The shallow depth and close relationship with surrounding low-level boundaries and public realm mean it would not achieve the level of privacy normally expected of outdoor amenity spaces intended for everyday enjoyment.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS32 of the [name] (2017), and Policies DM32, DM37 and DM42 of the

(2016). Amongst other things, these policies seek to provide good-quality living accommodation that enhances local distinctiveness and contributes to the creation of a sense of place and identity.

The Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, with the most recently tested supply position standing at 2.79 years. This is well below Government expectations. As a result, paragraph 11d ii and footnote 8 of the Framework require that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of a new residential accommodation that would assist in meeting need in the area, provide support for local facilities, and the creation of jobs during the construction phase.

However, for the reasons given above and from the information before me I have concluded that there would be significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, as well as to the living conditions of future residential occupiers. The support for the principle of development within the Framework is balanced by the importance it places on the provision of well-designed development that provides a high level of amenity for existing and future users. In this instance, the harm would be both significant and enduring. When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, and the material considerations, including the Framework, 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.