Appeal 6004323

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to outlook, light and privacy.

The appeal site relates to a detached 3-bedroom bungalow which is set back from the road with a driveway to the front and a long rectangular garden to the rear. Bungalows border the site on three sides with open fields on the opposite side of [address].

South of the nearby [address] the area displays a mix of bungalows and 2- storey dwellings sited on both sides of the road. By contrast, the immediate context of the appeal site is clearly characterised by traditional detached bungalows of varying sizes and designs set within generous plots and set-back from the road, some incorporating modest dormers. Buildings follow the gentle gradient of the road and are softened by established trees and landscaping within the front gardens. There are 2‐storey dwellings to the rear of the appeal site which are largely screened within the street scene, only glimpsed intermittently between bungalows and at sufficient distance to avoid any sense of visual intrusion. This results in a cohesive street scene with a verdant, semi‐rural character, within which the site sits comfortably.

The proposal includes the demolition of the existing bungalow and its replacement with a large, modern 2-storey dwelling comprising 5 bedrooms, with car parking provision across the frontage.

Policies GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031 (April 2019) (the Local Plan) and S10 of the Scraptoft Neighbourhood Plan: 2015-2028 (the SNP) do not require the retention of single-storey dwellings. However, they seek development that responds positively to local character and distinctiveness, while allowing for high-quality, innovative design where appropriate.

Although set back from the road, the proposed replacement dwelling’s substantially greater depth and more uniform front building line would result in a more prominent and visually dominant form than the existing staggered bungalow, thereby increasing its visual dominance within the street scene. Moreover, the proposal’s significantly higher eaves and overall height would depart from the gently stepped eaves and roof lines that characterises the surrounding bungalows along the rising road. Consequently, notwithstanding the half‐hipped roof form, the scale, height and mass of the proposed dwelling would fail to reflect the established pattern of development and would appear incongruous in its immediate context. The extensive glazing and balcony to the front elevation would further accentuate this incongruity.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy GD8 of the Local Plan which seeks, amongst other things, to secure new development which achieves a high standard of design that respects and enhances local character, responds sympathetically to the site, street scene and wider context while integrating into the existing built form. It would also conflict with Policy S10 of the SNP which aims to ensure that new developments reflect the distinctive character of Scraptoft. The supporting text reinforces the wider SNP objectives of raising design quality, through ensuring new development respects local character and contributes positively through sensitive scale, massing, height, layout and materials.

The proposal would introduce a two‐storey building spanning across most of the plot width and positioned close to both side boundaries. Its depth would extend materially beyond the rear elevation of [address] (No 138), in close proximity, representing a marked departure from the existing arrangement where the bungalow’s rear elevation generally aligns with that of No 138.

The proposal would result in a significant mass that would loom above the existing boundary fence and would unacceptably dominate the outlook from the neighbouring property at No 138. However, despite the substantial increase in massing adjacent to the shared boundary with No 138, the appellant has demonstrated that the development would not infringe the 45‐degree line from the nearest habitable room window. As such, it would not give rise to a material loss of daylight or sunlight to the neighbouring residents.

The introduction of a 2-storey dwelling, incorporating large first-floor windows and a rear balcony, in the context of surrounding bungalows on all sides would materially alter the character of the area. It would significantly erode the sense of privacy presently enjoyed by neighbouring residents in their gardens, notwithstanding boundary planting and fences. Furthermore, the rear balcony would enable elevated views, beyond the intervening driveway, over the high fence, towards [address], which lies at a lower level, resulting in an unacceptable overlooking relationship.

Accordingly, whilst I find that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on light, it would materially harm the living conditions of the neighbouring residents with regard to outlook and privacy. This would be contrary to Policy GD8 of the Local Plan which, amongst other things, seeks to safeguard residential amenity ensuring no significant adverse impacts on existing residents arising from loss of privacy, overshadowing and being overbearing. However, I do not find any particular conflict with Policy S10 of the SNP as this appears to relate solely to matters of design.

The appeal site does not lie within a designated conservation area and does not contain any protected trees. There are also no listed buildings in the vicinity. However, these matters are neutral factors and as such do not weigh in the development’s favour.

The appellant states that they are willing to amend the scheme to overcome some of the issues raised, such as by modifying or omitting the first-floor balconies. However, I am mindful that the appeals process should not be used to evolve a scheme to overcome the reasons for refusal and instead a fresh planning application should usually be made. The merits of a revised scheme would, if necessary, be a matter for the main parties to consider as part of a fresh proposal away from this appeal.

I note that the proposal is promoted as self‐build development, to which Policy H5 of the Local Plan lends support, however this is only where proposals also comply with Policy GD2 of the Local Plan. In this case, the development would fail to respect the established form and character of the settlement, for the reasons set out above, and would not therefore accord with Policy GD2 of the Local Plan. Moreover, there is no planning obligation before me to secure the self‐build intent and, notwithstanding the appellant’s stated intentions, the dwelling could therefore come forward as an open market unit.

In addition, I have considered whether it would be reasonable to impose a condition to secure such a use. However, monitoring and enforcing any such condition would be extremely difficult, and consequently I am not satisfied that such a condition would meet the necessary tests set out in the relevant Planning Practice Guidance. Consequently, this significantly reduces the weight afforded to this matter and I afford the provision of a self-build dwelling limited weight in the determination of the appeal.

The appellant contends that the proposal is necessary due to the absence of suitably sized alternative accommodation locally and that their needs could not be met through extending the existing dwelling. [name] have sympathy for their circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal represents the only viable solution, or that comparable properties are unavailable within a reasonable distance. Moreover, while the Harborough District Council Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Update 2024 indicates that no new housing is expected in the settlement before 2031, there is no requirement for occupiers to rely solely on new-build provision. Accordingly, these considerations do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites with a confirmed current supply of 3.1 years. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged. This requires that planning 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 taken as a whole.

As the proposal relates to a replacement dwelling, it would not make a positive contribution to the Council’s housing supply. The proposal would however make efficient use of land and would result in potential benefits in respect of energy efficiency to which I attribute moderate weight.

I have found that the proposed development would not amount to good design and would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Good design is a key policy of the Framework. Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply in this case.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.