Appeal 6004497

The appeal is dismissed.

The address and description of development above are taken from the Council’s decision notice as they more accurately and concisely describe the location of the appeal site and the development proposed than the details provided on the application form. The details above are consistent with those provided within the appeal form submitted by the appellant.

Within their appeal submission, the appellant provided an updated [name] Report. The main parties have been given the opportunity to provide comments on this report. I have had regard to the comments received and have considered the proposal in light of the submitted report.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of 54 and [address], with regard to outlook; • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outdoor space; and • whether the proposed development would satisfy the requirements of the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of open grassed land which fronts onto [address] and is abutted by residential gardens and a parking court. It is located within an area which is residential in character. Dwellings in the surrounding area are predominantly semi-detached or detached and 2-storeys in height, with associated structures, including garages, also present. Dwellings are arranged in a broadly linear pattern, fronting on to and framing areas of open space adjacent to [address] which are, consequently, experienced as distinct from the areas of built development. There is a consistent materials palette in the surrounding area including brick and render with tiled pitched roofs.

Immediately opposite the appeal site there is a sizeable area of landscaping which results in the area having an open, verdant character. Other landscaped areas in the vicinity, including the appeal site, reinforce this character, albeit making a lesser contribution by reason of their smaller size and limited features.

The appeal proposal would result in a new single-storey dwelling which, consistent with dwellings in the surrounding area, would have its front elevation on [address], overlooking the landscaped area opposite the site. The dwelling would use materials which would reflect and complement the existing built form in the surrounding area. Its scale, mass, bulk and proportions would be less than that of nearby dwellings, with its height similar to that of the nearby garage block.

Even though the proposal would be of a modest scale and be screened, to an extent, by vegetation provided as part of the development, it would appear as an incongruous and unduly prominent addition. This is primarily by reason of its siting on a currently open parcel of land, at odds with the spatial arrangement of the surrounding area. In this regard, the development would detract from and erode the visual qualities of the area, notably its open, verdant character. This includes as a result of the enclosure of the adjacent parking court, in conjunction with the nearby garage block.

Furthermore, by reason of the scale of development relative to the size of the site and the proximity of built form to the site boundaries, the proposed development would appear cramped. This is irrespective of the separation distances to dwellings to the north and south, the set back from the back edge of the pavement and that there would be sufficient space around the dwelling to allow for maintenance. The quantum of internal space which would be provided, and how this compares to the relevant standard, does not alter my finding in respect of this matter.

I do not dispute that the character of places evolves over time, including as a result of developments providing housing on small sites. Nevertheless, this matter does not justify the harm I have identified above.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In this regard, it would not accord with the relevant provisions of Policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2020-2039 (adopted 2024). This policy seeks, among other things, development which makes a positive contribution to local character, responds to the prevailing pattern of development and is an appropriate scale, height, massing, proportion and form. Living condition of occupiers of 54 and [address]

The proposed development would be greater in height than the existing boundary treatments at the rear of the gardens of 54 and [address]. Consequently, even though the building would be sited some distance from the built form at Nos 54 and 56 and partially screened by the intervening boundary treatments, it would be visible from the rear gardens of Nos 54 and 56. It would impinge considerably upon the open outlook from these gardens which results from the limited extent of adjacent built form, particularly to the rear. As such, although the height of the building and its hipped roof would ensure that outlook would not be entirely eroded by the proposal, the development would significantly increase the sense of enclosure experienced by the occupiers of Nos 54 and 56, thereby appearing overbearing. This would particularly be the case for No 56, given the siting of the proposed building.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 54 and 56, with regard to outlook. As such, the proposal is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy EN4 of the Local Plan. In summary, this policy seeks to ensure the amenity of residents occupying properties in the surrounding area is not significantly affected by development, including as a result of unacceptable visual impact and lack of outlook or a sense of enclosure.

While neither Policy EN4 of the Local Plan nor the Council’s Bookham and [name] specify a minimum outdoor space requirement for a 1-bed 2-person house, the [name] sets out that all new homes should have private amenity space proportional to the size of the dwelling and comparable to its immediate context. The appeal proposal would provide a modest quantum of outdoor space, arranged into 2 main areas to the front of the proposed dwelling. The appellant suggests that the proposed outdoor space would be proportionate to meet the needs of a small household comprising an elderly or working couple and that its configuration would be able to accommodate and meet the functional needs of future occupiers. However, from the plans before me, it is evident that the usable space would be severely limited by reason of its shape and size.

Moreover, the proposed hedge planting, which would provide dense screening and, therefore, afford privacy to future occupiers, would further reduce the usable space. Consequently, I am not satisfied that sufficient private outdoor space would be provided to enable any future occupiers, even an elderly or working couple, to meet even their functional needs. Notwithstanding that each case must be considered on its own individual circumstances, the outdoor space provision would also be considerably less than that in the immediate context, contrary to the guidance provided within the Council’s Design Code.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outdoor space. It would, therefore, conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy EN4 of the Local Plan. Among other things, this policy seeks to ensure the amenity of future occupiers and that the reasonable enjoyment of the use of buildings, gardens and other spaces is not significantly affected due to the adverse impact on amenity from nearby uses.

The Council raises concerns regarding inconsistencies between the [name] Report and [name] provided by the appellant and the lack of specific off-site habitat proposals identified to provide the necessary net gain. Nevertheless, these matters could be dealt with through the discharge of the biodiversity gain condition which would be attached to any planning permission in accordance with Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and, as such, does not warrant the refusal of planning permission.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would satisfy the requirements of the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain. In this regard, it would comply with the relevant provisions of Policy EN9 of the Local Plan which seeks a biodiversity net gain of at least 20%.

The appellant has drawn Policy C2 of the Council’s Core Strategy to my attention. However, the [name] was superseded by the Local Plan upon its adoption in 2024. As such, Policy C2 is no longer in use and does not alter my assessment of the appeal proposal.

The proposal would contribute towards housing supply in the District. Nonetheless, the Council is currently able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is, therefore, not engaged. Moreover, by reason of the scale of the proposed development, the contribution towards housing supply would, inevitably, be limited. Consequently, this matter attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposed development.

The proposal would deliver economic, social and environmental benefits, including economic benefits during construction. The appellant has put to me that the social benefits of the proposal include contributing to the supply of smaller dwellings suitable for downsizing, consistent with the Bookham Neighbourhood Development Plan (BNDP). As the appeal site is located outside of the area covered by the BNDP, the BNDP is not of direct relevance to the proposal. Nevertheless, I afford moderate weight to the benefits associated with the proposal.

The Council concludes that the proposal would not result in a significant reduction in the levels of daylight entering Nos 54 and 56, significant overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy. From the plans before me and my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree with these findings. The proposed bin storage arrangement has been confirmed as acceptable by the Council. No trees would be affected by the proposed development. However, these matters have a neutral effect on the planning balance.

The appellant advises that they would accept planning conditions in respect of ecology, transport, sustainable construction and drainage. Nonetheless, such conditions would not overcome the harm I have identified above in relation to character and appearance and living conditions.

The proposed development would contribute towards housing supply in the District delivering associated social and economic benefits as well as a biodiversity net gain in accordance with the development plan. However, these cumulative benefits do not outweigh the harm I have identified from the proposal.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.