Appeal 6004289

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site has been subject to various refusals for planning permission for residential development, including one which is subject to a separate appeal for which I am also the appointed Inspector1. Given the similarities between the proposals and the issues involved, the decisions will inevitably appear similar. However, each proposal has been assessed on its individual planning merits.

The evidence before me, including the site plan, makes reference to a proposed 3m hedge to the north of the appeal site. The land on which the hedge is proposed does not appear to be in control of the appellant, falling outside of the red line site location plan (or other land within the appellant’s ownership). I have therefore not taken the proposed 3m hedging to be a part of the appeal proposal for consideration before me.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and natural light; • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of private amenity space and natural light; and, • whether the proposal could deliver the required biodiversity net gain. 1 Appeal Ref: 6004290

The appeal site forms a corner plot on [address], in an area which is primarily comprised of residential development. Dwellings within the surrounding area are predominantly formed of semi-detached or terraced two storey properties, but detached dwellings, including detached bungalows, are also present in the immediate street scene.

There is a wide variety of plot sizes within the surrounding area. Whilst the prevalent character is formed of long narrow plots, there are examples of more modestly proportioned plots sizes in the area which are broadly comparable to the size of the appeal site.

Irrespective of plot size and form, dwellings are typically set back from the highway edge separated by driveways or areas of landscaping. Boundary treatments with the highway, where they exist, are mostly formed of a mixture of low fencing and walls, as well as some hedged boundaries. I understand that the boundary of the appeal site, prior to the erection of the existing fence, previously featured hedgerow, as did land to the east before the development of the adjacent dormer bungalows.

In the immediate street scene context, where hedged boundaries remain present, they are typically behind grassed frontages. [name] did observe examples of high hedging against the highway in the wider area, including on corner plots, overall, the combination of the set back of dwellings and low boundary treatments gives the surrounding area a relatively open character.

The proposed dwelling would be positioned almost immediately against the northern boundary of the appeal site with little gap between the side of the dwelling and the boundary fence. It would protrude notably beyond the building line established by the dormer bungalows to the east.

Despite conforming broadly with the design of other dwellings in the area, given its positioning in the plot, the proposed dwelling would be a conspicuous and dominant form of development within the street scene. Even if I were able to control the delivery of a 3m hedgerow to the north of the dwelling, neither this, nor the existing fence would adequately mitigate the overall visual prominence of the proposal. There would be inadequate space within the red line site location plan for the implementation of further landscaping to the north of the proposed dwelling.

In the absence of a reasonable set back from the highway edge, which forms a characteristic feature in the area, the proposal would appear as a cramped and contrived form of development. Whilst the appellant has provided examples of various other residential developments in the surrounding area, there is little to suggest that any of these are directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me, in particular its positioning on a corner plot and non-conformity with established building lines.

Based on the above, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (2019) (LPSS) and Policies D4 and D8 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2023) (LPDMP) which collectively seek for developments to integrate well with, and respond positively to the existing character and identity of the local area, including through creating a coherent pattern of built form.

Policy D5 of the LPDMP sets out that development proposals are required to avoid having an unacceptable impact on the living environment of existing residential properties, including in terms of overbearing effects or access to sunlight and daylight.

[address] (No 48) has two first floor windows within its northern side gable facing towards the appeal site. I understand that these serve a bathroom (a non-habitable room), and the sole window to a bedroom.

Although it is suggested that the appeal proposal demonstrates greater separation when compared to previous proposals on the appeal site, this is not relevant to the appeal before me, upon which I must assess on its own merits.

Whilst the side elevation of No 48 already faces the shared boundary, as existing, the outlook for the first floor is largely void of intervening built form. Given the modest separation distance, the outlook from the bedroom window for the occupiers of No 48 would become entirely dominated by the roof slope of the proposed dwelling, creating an unacceptable sense of enclosure and an overbearing effect.

The bedroom window is the sole window serving a habitable room to No 48 and I see no reason why this window should be afforded a lower level of protection purely because it forms a side elevation. It is suggested that there are comparable examples of similar relationships in the surrounding area, but little detail has been provided to evidence these, or demonstrate how these are directly comparable to the unacceptable relationship which the appeal proposal would create.

Noting the orientation of the windows and that the roof of the proposal would slope away from the shared boundary, I do not find that the proposal would have significant effect on the levels of natural light received to the bedroom at No 48. Nevertheless, a lack of harm in this respect does not overcome the overall harmful effects which I have identified above.

In relation to this main issue, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook. It would therefore be contrary to Policy D5 of the LPDMP.

Policy D5 of the LPDMP also refers to the provision of acceptable living conditions for new residential properties, including in relation to private amenity space and access to sunlight and daylight.

The proposed garden area would be positioned to the west of the dwelling, bounded in part by the highway. Although the main parties disagree to the exact height of the existing fence, the plans annotate a fence of 1.5m against the highway. This height could be secured by a condition if the appeal were to be otherwise allowed.

For the reasons set out above, I have not accounted for privacy afforded by a hedgerow to the north. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the garden area would be sufficiently private even with just the fence. [name] note that a fence of 1.5m in height against the highway is not the predominant type of boundary treatment in the area, I do not consider that the fence alone is sufficiently harmful in character terms that it could not be considered as an appropriate solution for achieving a functional garden area.

The ground floor windows along the northern elevation would be almost abutting the boundary fence. Nevertheless, the proposed details show that the height of the windows would be at least partly above the boundary fence, giving the ability for them to still be opened to allow ventilation.

Taking account of the large patio doors proposed to the western elevation, which would serve an open plan living space, I am satisfied that the ground floor of the proposed dwelling would receive adequate levels of natural light.

The single bedroom on the first floor would be served solely by the window in the roof dormer. Nevertheless, the outlook from this window would be unobstructed given its height above the boundary fence. [name] note the Council’s concerns relating to the potential for the window to become obstructed by the growth of a hedge, this is a speculative concern and I have little to suggest that, even if a hedge were to be planted, it would grow to such an extent that it would block outlook from the first floor dormer windows.

Based on the above, I find that the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of private amenity space and natural light. In respect to this main issue, I have therefore identified no direct conflict with Policy D5 of the LPDMP.

Policy ID4 of the LPSS sets out, amongst other matters that new development should aim to deliver gains in biodiversity where appropriate. Policy P7 of the LPDMP goes on to require a biodiversity net gain (BNG) of at least 20%, measured using the national BNG calculation methodology.

The application was accompanied by a small sites metric which failed to demonstrate that 20% net gain would be achieved on site.

However, if the appeal were to succeed, it would be subject to the statutory pre-commencement biodiversity gain condition (‘the condition’) as set out in Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). In this scenario, guidance contained in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it would generally be inappropriate, when determining a planning application for a development subject to BNG, to be refused on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met. The PPG advises that more broadly, consideration may be required as to whether ‘the condition’ is capable of being successfully discharged.

‘The condition’ sets out that development cannot begin until the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) has been approved. It would be for the Council to consider the BGP, and whether or not the measures are acceptable and secured. I see no reason why an appropriate agreement could not be entered into at BGP stage. Off-site provision could still be achieved through an appropriate conservation covenant, which is separate to the planning process, or through the purchase of biodiversity credits as a last resort. As such, I am satisfied that ‘the condition’ is capable of being discharged, broadly following the hierarchy.

Therefore, I find the development is capable of meeting the requirements for BNG, in accordance with the statutory framework. In respect to this main issue, I have found no conflict with Policy ID4 of the LPSS or Policy P7 of the LPDMP.

The application was partly refused on the basis that the appellant failed to provide sufficient information to satisfy the Council that the development could satisfactorily mitigate against recreational disturbance to the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area.

[name] have found that the scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider this further.

It is suggested that the appeal site has been subject to instances of anti-social behaviour including fly tipping. However, I have little substantive evidence which indicates this to be a frequent occurrence or indeed that the development of the site for residential purposes would be the only viable means of preventing such instances.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council has confirmed that the present supply is 2.98 years which is a notable shortfall, demonstrating that the need for housing is pressing. Paragraph 11(d)ii of the Framework requires me to consider whether the adverse impacts of permitting the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Frameworks policies as a whole.

Even small developments present the opportunity to make a meaningful, immediate difference to housing land supply. The proposal would also have other benefits including economic and environmental benefits through its sustainable construction, additional planting and increase in local spend.

Noting the modest scale of the proposal, I have given the associated benefits, including its contribution towards housing delivery in an area suitable for residential development in principle, moderate weight in the overall balance.

As above, I have identified that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area as well as the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The proposal would therefore be at odds with the Framework’s objective to achieve well-designed places. It would also directly conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework which requires development to create a high standard of amenity for existing users. In light of these provisions, I find the harm arising from the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The circumstances as set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework exist and so the presumption in favour of granting planning permission does not apply.

[name] have found that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for proposed occupiers and that it would be capable of meeting the requirements for BNG, it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and therefore the appeal is dismissed.