Appeal 6004290

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 • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of private amenity space and internal floor space. 1 Appeal Ref: 6004289

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.

[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 proposed 3m hedgerow between the two dwellings would do little to screen the bulk of the roof form when viewed from the bedroom window of No 48.

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.

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.

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.

In its reason for refusal, the Council also refer to the scheme’s noncompliance with the Technical housing standards - [name] (NDSS)

However, I have not been directed to a planning policy which requires compliance with these standards.

Given the size of the bedroom, I find it entirely reasonable for the Council to conclude that the proposal represents a one bedroom, two-person dwelling. Nevertheless, even if I were to find it justified to apply the NDSS, the shortfall against these standards for the level of internal floor space required would be marginal. I find that the level of internal floor space would be sufficient to functionally allow occupation of the proposed dwelling by two people (albeit I note the intention is for the dwelling to be for single occupancy).

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 internal floor space. In respect to this main issue, I have therefore identified no direct conflict with Policy D5 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, 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.