Appeal 6004739

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect on the character and appearance of the area, • The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 54A and [address], with particular regard to overlooking, overbearing effect, outlook, and overshadowing, and • Whether future occupiers would experience satisfactory living conditions, with particular regard to outside space and privacy.

The appeal site is positioned to the rear of existing dwellings that front both [address] and [address]. The surrounding area comprises of residential dwellings that are both one and two storeys in height. Where there is third storey accommodation this is in the main accommodated within the roof space of dwellings. The majority of dwellings front onto the street, but there are a number of properties that are positioned behind others. Where this occurs, they are generally not overly visible from the street and where there is visibility, the properties sit comfortably within the existing development in terms of their scale and height.

The appeal scheme proposes the development of six dwellings, two would replace an existing single storey property that sits along [address]. These would be detached, two storey dwellings that would integrate appropriately with the dwellings with which they would share their closest visual association. The remaining four proposed dwellings would replace an existing, substantial two-storey property. These would be positioned behind existing properties along an access lane and thus can be described as backland development.

Each of the four dwellings is designed as part-three and part-two storeys in height. I note that the highest portions of the dwellings would be positioned within the innermost part of the site, nonetheless their height would mean that each dwelling would be visible extending upwards above the height of surrounding dwellings. At this location and given that the highest parts would effectively be clustered together, the three-storey elements would appear as incongruous additions to the suburban location. They would not, in my view, relate well to the scale and height of the surrounding properties and would be visually overprominent when viewed within the surrounding townscape. That the dwellings have been designed with two storey stone elevations, with cladding to the third storey above, would in my view exacerbate the visual discordancy. The effect I have identified would be particularly appreciable in views along the access lane, but in addition it would also be possible for there to be views of the development from the road in the surrounding area.

I note comments that the buildings would not exceed the chimney height of a nearby property. However, the proposals ridgelines would reach this level and as such, the full scale and massing of the buildings would extend to this height, rather than what is a minor feature of a roof. In addition, this would present a greater visual effect due to the shallow pitch of the roofs. Moreover, I am aware of the comparison with the height of dwellings that form part of an extant planning permission on the site. However, from the information that is before me, that scheme would result in a lesser number of dwellings and thus the massing of visible built development would be less and would be set back further into the site. Therefore, neither of these matters lead me to find differently than I have above.

I note the comments made in respect of the lack of public realm landscaping and separation between the proposed dwellings; however, the scheme would comprise a discrete cluster of dwellings to the rear of existing properties. As a result, the level of landscaping within the site would not have an effect on the character or appearance of the wider area. Moreover, the positioning and layout of the dwellings is not such that it would appear as there was a lack of separation between them.

There is some commentary on the quantum and density of the development, in terms of the number of dwellings that are proposed within the site. While this is noted, as is the existence of the previous granted permission for three dwellings, it may well be that the site is capable of accommodating four dwellings. However, it is the specifics of the scheme that is before me that I have considered, and I find that which is presented results in the harm that I have identified.

While the scheme would not be inappropriate in terms of its landscaping and layout, I find that the height and scale of the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Thus, it conflicts with policy CP6 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan – [name] (the [name]), as well as policies D1, D2 and D7 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan - Placemaking Plan (the Placemaking Plan) and policy D5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan [name].

Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development achieves a high quality of design, enriches the quality and character of places, contributes positively to local character, that backland development is well related in height and scale to frontage buildings, and buildings are appropriately designed.

The dwellings on Plots 3 and 6 would be positioned to the rear of the existing properties of 54A and [address] (No. 54A and No. 55). There are no windows above ground floor level to elevations of the proposed properties that would face these properties. However, there would be windows to both the northwest elevation of Plot 3 and the southeast elevation of Plot 6. While these would not afford direct views of the gardens of the existing properties, there would be angled views towards them. I note that the proposed scheme relies on a three-metre-high new hedge along the eastern boundary of the site to protect the occupiers of the existing properties.

There is an existing high hedge to the rear of No. 55, but to the rear of No. 54A there is a two-metre-high timber fence. The installation of a three-metre-high boundary hedge to the rear of No. 54A would substantially and unacceptably enclose the rear garden area of the property and diminish the enjoyment of it by the occupiers due to its overbearing effect. Moreover, even with the proposed boundary treatment, the combined level of actual and perceived overlooking (from a third floor window) of the garden area would adversely and unsatisfactorily affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 54A, despite its oblique angle. I accept that there is the existing high hedge to the rear of No. 55 and that this would screen some overlooking from the existing dwelling on the appeal site, the effect of the proposed scheme on the occupiers of No. 55 would be broadly similar to that which currently exists.

In terms of outlook, the scheme will result in a degree of new built development to rear of existing properties. However, in light of the design of the proposed properties, in that the tallest elements are positioned to the centre of the site, and not closest to the existing dwellings, as well as that there would be a sufficient degree of separation between them, the appearance of the new built form would not be such that it would be oppressive or intrusive on outlook. The appellant has submitted an assessment of the effect of the proposal in terms of overshadowing of neighbouring properties. This demonstrates that there would be no significant adverse effect in this regard, and no detailed evidence has been provided to show otherwise. As such, there would be no harmful effect due to overshadowing.

Therefore, while I find that there would not be any unacceptable effect through outlook and overshadowing, I find that the proposed development would result in a deleterious effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 54A as a result of overlooking and overbearing effect. Thus, the scheme conflicts with policy D6 of the Placemaking Plan, insofar as it seeks to ensure development achieves appropriate levels of privacy and significant harm is not caused to the amenities of existing occupiers. Living conditions – future occupiers

Each of the proposed dwellings is set within plots that accommodate the footprint of each building, parking spaces, patios, and grassed areas. However, due to the irregular shape of the appeal site together with the proposed layout, the external space around each property is limited and constrained. This results in a somewhat contrived layout to the private garden spaces.

[name] note that to plots 1 and 2 there are rear garden spaces that are more generous in their depth, to the remaining plots gardens are generally narrow areas positioned around the buildings. As a consequence, and together with differing levels within the spaces, this limits the usefulness of these areas as meaningful areas of garden. [name] have not been provided with any numerical minimum standard for garden size, considering the size of the dwellings and that they accommodate five double bedrooms, I find that the area of external gardens within the scheme would be deficient. The narrow nature of the areas, considered together with the three-storey nature of the proposed dwellings, which would rise high above the outdoor areas, would also result in unattractive outdoor spaces.

The appellant highlights that occupiers may seek to reduce the extent of hard surfaced areas within each plot in order to increase the grassed or landscaped areas. However, this does not allay my concerns in respect of the overall useable external space provided.

As a consequence, future occupiers of the dwellings on plots 3 – 6 would not experience satisfactory living conditions with regard to outdoor space provision. Thus, the proposal conflicts with policy D6 of the Placemaking Plan, insofar as it seeks to ensure that development provides adequate and useable outdoor space.

The Council has expressed concern that it would be possible for there to be views directly into the living space of the dwelling on Plot 6, from the upper floors of the dwelling on Plot 3. The appellant points to the provision of an overhang above the large area of glazing to Plot 6. However, while this may aid to screen views from the uppermost floor of Plot 3, I do not consider that it would be sufficient to screen views from the first floor, where views from the bedroom would be possible into the living space. There is insufficient separation to avoid this. As such, the occupiers of the property on Plot 6 would not experience satisfactory living conditions by reason of overlooking causing a loss of privacy.

Therefore, there would be conflict with policy D6 of the Placemaking Plan, insofar as it seeks to ensure that development achieves appropriate levels of privacy.

I note that the appellant makes frequent reference to comments within the report to the planning committee. However, that report is a recommendation to the decisionmakers and not the final decision of the Council. Therefore, while the opinion of officers is noted, it is the matters set out in the Council’s statement of case that comprise the position of the Council in determining the application.

There is reference to the efficient use of land in respect of the density of the proposed development. However, the harm I have identified stems from the details of the specific scheme that are proposed, not necessarily its base density.

I am aware that a subsequent planning application has been submitted and approved for a revised scheme in respect of plots 1 and 2. This however has little bearing on my consideration of the appeal scheme that is before me.

It is common ground that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as envisaged by paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

I have identified that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and that the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would not experience satisfactory living conditions.

To be balanced against this are the benefits that would accrue from the scheme. There would be a contribution towards providing additional housing, albeit that in this case the contribution would be small. There would also be social and economic benefits although these would also be small in their extent. I also note that the appellant states that the scheme can be delivered quickly.

Overall, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Accordingly, the balance falls against granting planning permission.

The scheme would conflict with the policies above and with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.