Appeal 6005079

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses immediately above the existing topmost residential storey on a building which is a purpose-built, detached block of flats, subject to limitations and conditions.

It is not therefore necessary to have regard to the policies of the development plan. However, paragraph B(15)(b) of Part 20 of the GPDO requires that regard be had to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application.

Where an application is made for prior approval, paragraph B(3)(a) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with any conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to the development in question. Previously, the Council refused an application for prior approval for the addition of two storeys above the existing block of flats to provide ten x 1 bedroom flats1.

The Council considered that the proposal qualifies as permitted development, and I find no reason to reach a different conclusion. However, the Council refused prior 1 LPA reference 25/W/00005 approval because it considered that, by reference to Conditions A.2.(1)(a), A.2.(1)(e) and A.2.(1)(g) of Part 20 Class A of the GPDO, it would have a harmful impact on highway safety, negatively affect the external appearance of the building, and adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring premises including loss of privacy and outlook.

I consider that the main issues in this appeal are: • the impact of the proposal on the external appearance of the building with particular reference to the adjacent [name] listed building; • the impact of the proposal on transport and highways; • the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring premises at 202 [site address] with particular reference to outlook; and • the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring premises at 29, 31, 33, 35 and [address] with particular reference to privacy.

The appeal site is located on the outskirts of Guildford, on [site address] which is one of the principal routes into the city. The junction of [site address] with [address] and [address] has a commercial character, with a petrol filling station, an Aldi food store and a parade of shops. Opposite and beyond the appeal site, trees and hedgerows provide a verdant backdrop to [site address] , with residential properties generally located either within or behind the landscaped strip.

The building occupies a transitional location between the commercial area and the predominantly residential buildings on the far side and opposite. The adjoining parade is three storeys high, while the majority of nearby dwellings and flats are two storeys high, albeit with accommodation in the roof space in some instances. The proposed building would be one storey higher than the parade and two storeys higher than most of residential properties, making it the highest building in the immediate area. Although set back from [site address] behind a wide grass verge, and notwithstanding the presence of a mansard roof on the adjacent shopping parade, the increased height of the building and its flat roof would be at odds with the lower building heights and pitched roofs which characterise the surrounding area. The proposal would create an overly-dominant building which would conflict with the prevailing character of the area.

The planning history suggests that the building was constructed in the 1950s, and its design and appearance reflect the postwar period. The addition of a mansard style extra storey faced with hanging tiles would be an incongruous addition given the simple design of the existing building. The near verticality of the sides of the mansard and the large dormer-style windows would add to the inappropriateness of its appearance. For these reasons, the proposal would be harmful to the external appearance of the building.

The property next to the appeal site is the [name] listed [name]/[address] (200 and 202 [site address] ), which dates from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The building is two storeys high with a three bay centre chimney plan, and has been extended on either side. It is timber framed with brick infill panels on the ground floor, tile hanging at first floor and a plain tiled roof with rebuilt chimney stacks. By virtue of its close proximity to the boundary of the listed building, the appeal site forms part of its setting. S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) places a statutory duty on decision makers to have special regard to preserving the setting of listed buildings.

The listed building is set back from [site address] behind an open, landscaped frontage which forms an important part of its setting. The dwellings to the side and the rear of [name]/[address] are one and two storeys high and separated from it by rear gardens, and are broadly sympathetic to the listed building in terms of their scale and appearance. By contrast, the flats on the appeal site are the tallest and closest building to the listed building. Although the boundary between the appeal site and the listed building is marked by a coniferous hedge which screens the ground and first floor, the top storey of the flats is visible from the listed building and forms a prominent feature owing to its non-traditional design and contrasting yellow bricks.

The proposed additional storey, although designed as a mansard and clad in hanging tiles, would add significantly to the bulk of the building. As a result, it would dominate the setting of [name]/[address], in an inappropriate manner for a building which provides an important link to the area’s rural, agrarian past. It would cause harm to elements of the listed building’s setting that make a positive contribution to its significance, resulting in a high degree of less than substantial harm to its significance.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The provision of four flats on a sustainably located brownfield site would assist with the Council’s five year housing land supply, which currently stands at 2.98 years. The proposal would provide economic benefits during and after construction. I have not however found that the proposal would improve the appearance of the building or the area, so I have not afforded positive weight to these matters. Taken together, these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the appearance of the building and the surrounding area by reason of its excessive height and inappropriate design, which would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the adjacent listed building. As a result, the proposal would conflict with paragraphs 135, 202 and 208 of the Framework, which require schemes to be sympathetic to local character, maintain a strong sense of place and conserve the historic environment.

A car free development is proposed, which necessitates both good accessibility to facilities and on-street parking controls in the vicinity of the site. The appeal site is located close to a parade of shops and an Aldi food store, with a Sainsburys food store close by, so the day-to-day needs of future occupiers would be catered for. There is a regular bus service to the centre of Guildford where higher order facilities and a train station are located. Future occupiers would therefore have access to a range of transport options, reducing their reliance on the private vehicle.

There are parking restrictions in the vicinity of the appeal site in the form of double yellow lines, though I have not been advised if there is a [name] in place. As such, there is no mechanism in place to prevent future occupiers from owning cars and seeking to park close by. Although there are currently several onsite garages and parking spaces, it is unclear whether they are sufficient to serve existing residents and whether capacity exists to cater for the proposed additional residents.

The appellant has proposed a car club, although it is not stated where the cars would park. Given the complexity and cost involved in running a car club, a condition would be unlikely to meet the tests in paragraph 57 of the Framework, and a deed of unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would be required. As one has not been supplied, there is no mechanism to secure a car club, and I afford limited weight to this aspect of the proposal.

To provide an alternative to the private car, covered parking for four bicycles along with charging points is proposed. However, the cycle store is proposed to be located behind a row of garages, with a narrow gap between the garages and the site boundaries which might make it unfeasible for bicycles to access the proposed store. It is also unclear if the area presently serves a function for residents of the flats, and whether its loss is therefore justified. I consequently attach limited weight to the proposed cycle storage.

Whilst the sustainable location of the site means that future residents would not be heavily reliant on the private vehicle, there would be nothing to stop residents owning cars and seeking to park them locally. Anecdotal evidence, which my site visit confirmed, is that the parking spaces outside the parade of shops are well used. There is therefore limited on-street capacity locally to accommodate any overspill parking which the proposal would give rise to. Given the presence in [site address] of cycle lanes, bus stops, pedestrian crossings and a nearby roundabout, inconsiderate parking could compromise highway safety.

Whilst the sustainable location of the site means that I do not find conflict with paragraph 110 of the Framework, which requires significant development to be focused on sustainable locations, paragraph 116 of the Framework indicates that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. I conclude that this is a situation where such an adverse impact could occur, with resultant harm in terms of transport and highways. Outlook from 202 [site address]

The existing three storey flats adjacent to 202 [site address] are already a prominent feature and would be increased to four storeys in height. The proposal would not give rise to overlooking, however, as the only additional windows on this elevation would be bathroom windows.

The side elevation of No 202 is a moderate distance away from the boundary with the appeal site, with the intervening space used for parking cars. The side elevation of No 202 contains a number of windows at ground and first floor, serving a kitchen, study, two bedrooms and a landing. The bedrooms enjoy an outlook to the front and rear respectively, as well as the side, and consequently the proposal would not have a severe impact on their outlook; whilst the landing does not constitute a habitable room, and would retain an outlook that reflects its status. However, the kitchen and study have no alternative outlook, and whilst not habitable rooms, are likely to be well used rooms whose outlook is important for the enjoyment of occupiers. The proposal would create an imposing structure which would be overbearing and create an increased sense of enclosure, with consequent harm to the outlook of occupiers.

I conclude that the proposal would increase the overbearing nature of the flats and add to the sense of enclosure of No 202. Given the relatively small separation distance between the proposal and the dwelling, it would dominate the outlook from these windows, harming the living conditions of occupiers as a result. The proposal would conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework, which requires a high standard of amenity for existing users. Privacy of 29, 31, 33, 35 and [address]

[address] is located to the rear of the appeal site and contains a number of dwellings which back onto it. The three storey height of the existing flats and their large windows, particularly those in the rear projection which extends towards [address], result in the dwellings directly behind the flats – Nos 31 and 33 – having the perception of being overlooked, despite the intervening parking area and garage blocks. For those dwellings which are offset from the appeal site – Nos 29, 35 and 37 – the impact is lessened.

The proposal would result in four additional windows serving habitable facing the dwellings in [address]. Importantly, however, the additional windows would be above the main portion of the building and not the rear wing. As a result, there would be a sufficient separation distance between the additional windows and the properties in [address] such that, notwithstanding the increased height of the building, there would not be a material increase in the perception of overlooking.

I conclude that the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of 29, 31, 33, 35 and [address], and would accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework by ensuring a high standard of amenity for existing users.

The appeal site falls within the 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). [name] been minded to allow the appeal, it would have been incumbent upon me as competent authority to consider whether the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the site. However, as I am dismissing the appeal, it has not been necessary for me to pursue this issue further.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.