Appeal 6004343

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character of the area, having regard to locally listed buildings, and • The living conditions of the occupants of [address], having regard to outlook.

The appeal property comprises a single detached dwelling in a sizeable plot fronting the main road in the settlement. The road comprises a mix of properties of different periods. As such this area has an ad hoc, irregular character. That said, it is easy to read the evolution of the settlement, with small cottages now surrounded by more recent infill development. Also, while it is visually evident that the properties were constructed in different timeframes, built forms are generally of a traditional domestic architectural style which brings some coherency to this area.

The existing dwelling at the appeal property has a detach traditional form, in this regard it is in keeping with the character of the area. It also benefits from a large garden plot. Even with a side extension This relatively undeveloped space to the side of the dwelling, even in its currently poorly maintained state, appears a relatively positive feature in the street scene.

The site is flanked by [name] and [address] which are locally listed buildings. The historic interest is clear at the Hall, which has a traditional form and distinctive date stone. That said the Hall has a sizeable box like extension at the shared boundary with the appeal site, which appears a somewhat detracting feature in this immediate setting.

[address] is largely screened at the front, it’s diminutive traditional cottage form can be appreciated in glimpsed views from the street. The garden at the appeal property helps with the appreciation of this positive feature. The characterful roof of [address] also appears a positive feature when viewed from [address], at the rear of the appeal property, across the appeal property’s garden.

This proposal would replace the existing dwelling with semidetached properties. The proposed design would not be at odds with the traditional style of existing dwellings in the area. However, the new built form would be very close to the shared boundary with [address] such that much of the side garden of the appeal property would be filled by a two storey dwelling.

As illustrated on the submitted drawings, the space that currently provides pleasant relief between the existing built forms in this part of the street scene would be considerably eroded. Changes to the height and shape of the roof at the rear would not address a visual harm that would occur at the front of the new dwellings. The substantial loss of the existing space, that presently provides a positive frame for [address], would be significantly changed under this scheme. In turn this would negatively alter the setting of this non-designated heritage asset and how its remaining interest is presently appreciated.

The adverse visual effect would be localised, and as the proposed changes would affect only the setting of the locally listed building, the harm to the non-designated historic asset would be limited. However, the negative impact on the character of the area would be significant, albeit at the lower end of the spectrum of harm.

In light of the above, I find that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the character of the area, having regard to locally listed buildings. In this respect the proposal would conflict with Policies CS1 and CS9 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] ([name]) and Policies PSP38 and PSP17 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (PSPP). [name] collectively, amongst other matters, seek high quality design and require that heritage assets are conserved, respected and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The majority of outside space at [address] (No 14) is at the front of the property, with only a very small courtyard located at the rear adjacent to the shared boundary with the appeal property. This modest neighbouring cottage has limited openings on the side elevation at this boundary, but these include a large window that provides the main source of outlook and light from a living room at the rear of the dwelling.

I saw that the dwelling at No 16 can be seen when looking out of this relatively modest rear living room at No 14. However, the existing dwellings at the appeal site is currently several metres from the shared boundary of [address], such that it does not appear an oppressive feature when in that neighbouring living room. The appellant draws attention to an existing shed in the rear garden of No 14, but this is a similar height to the boundary treatment. As such, the current outlook for occupants using this living room of the neighbouring dwelling is dominated by the sky above this shared boundary and a sense of space.

The new dwelling B would bring the built from at the appeal property very close to this shared boundary. Moreover, for flood risk mitigation reasons, the finished floor levels of the new dwellings would likely be over half a meter higher than the existing built form at this site. Even limited to a single storey at the rear, and with vegetation cleared, this new dwelling would considerably fill the existing space that currently contributes to the reasonable outlook from the rear living room of No 14.

The appellant’s statement includes an analysis of impact on outlook anticipated as a result of this development, and this concludes that the effect would be negligible. However, the images appear just from one angle, and the modelling is based on one seated position in the neighbour’s living room. Moreover, this analysis fails to take account of the angled orientation of the proposed and existing properties as evidenced in the proposed block plan.

I saw that when considering most parts of the neighbouring living room, that the new structure at the scale proposed, so close to this shared side boundary, would likely appear overbearing. Dominating the outlook, the new feature would seem oppressive to those using this habitable room. Consequently, the current quality of living conditions enjoyed by occupants of this neighbouring dwelling would be significantly and harmfully altered.

The new dwelling would also dominate the outlook when occupants of No 14 use their rear courtyard for the same reason. The existing quality of this small outside space would be considerably eroded as a consequence of this development.

The appellant’s evidence also shows that the new dwelling B would interfere with the current levels of day light reaching the side of [address]. While this may not amount to a reason for refusing planning permission on its own, it would contribute to the erosion in the quality of living conditions that the occupants of No 14 currently enjoy.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], having regard to outlook. In this respect the proposal would conflict with Policies CS1 of the [name] and Policies PSP1 and PSP8 of the PSPP. [name] collectively, amongst other matters, seek to protect residential amenity.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 require a competent authority to have regard to the requirements of the associated Directive so far as it may be affected by the exercise of its functions. This is relevant where any proposal that might lead to the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites and resting places of [name], which include bats and the places they roost.

A Preliminary Ecological Assessment shows the presence of bats and other protected species and further bat survey work is required at the appropriate time of year. The appellant does not dispute the need for further surveys but has not chosen to submit these in this appeal.

The proposed scheme is relatively modest, but it would, nonetheless, affect existing built forms and vegetation at the appeal property. Moreover, national guidance is clear that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by a proposed development, should be established before the planning permission is granted.

With the limited information provided, I am unable to establish the extent to which protected species may be affected by this proposal. While the appellant is content to address this matter by condition, national guidance states that planning conditions requiring relevant ecological surveys to establish, amongst other matters, whether species are present, should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances. No compelling evidence has been advanced that exceptional circumstances exist in this case. I therefore find conflict with Policy PSP19 of the Policies, Site and Places Plan in this regard.

A BNG plan has been submitted with this proposal pursuant with legislative requirements. This statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, requires every planning permission to be granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. While noting that there would be loss of habitat units on site, evidence suggests that the 10% net gain required will be addressed by securing units off site, which legislation permits.

Although the Council may have queries about the evidence submitted on this matter, BNG is a mandatory precondition that would need to be satisfied before development commences. Moreover, I find no compelling evidence that the appellant has not provided the minimum national information required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 at the application stage.

The Council’s most recently published housing land supply (HLS) stands at 3.93 years, equating to a shortfall of more than 1600 dwellings, which is considerable. The provisions of paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) are therefore relevant in this case.

The proposal would result in a net gain of one dwelling in the site. In this regard the proposal would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes and it would also help to address the district’s HLS shortfall. This may be a small contribution but given the extent of the current shortfall I attach significant weight to this small benefit.

The appeal site is also in a settlement with access to some services and public transport. As a small windfall site, the development could also be delivered quickly. There would also be some economic benefit from the CIL payment and through the construction process. Furthermore, future occupants would likely support services and add to the vibrancy of the settlement. These would be small social, environmental and economic benefits given the scale of the development but nonetheless these benefits weigh in favour of the proposal.

As outlined, significant visual harm would occur from this development, and this would have an adverse effect on the setting of the neighbouring non-designated heritage asset. This would be towards the lower end of the harm spectrum such that, taking a balanced judgement, this adverse effect would be outweighed by the benefits in this case.

That said, I have found that this proposal would lead to unsatisfactory living conditions, with regards to outlook, for occupants of No 14. The Framework requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Even if matters related to protected species could be overcome, and I accept that the harm to character is outweighed by benefits of the development, the proposal remains poorly designed in this regard. The Framework confirms that development that is not well designed should be refused.

Accordingly, I find that that the adverse impacts, with regards living conditions, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the small benefits identified above, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons stated above and having regard to the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, the appeal should be dismissed.