Appeal 6005205

The appeal is dismissed.

On 24 September 2020, an appeal was allowed which granted permission for the ‘demolition of existing garage and erection of a dwellinghouse (C3) fronting [address] with landscaping and associated works’ (the 2020 scheme).

At the time of my site visit, a dwelling had been constructed comprising ground floor and basement, with a courtyard. The living area and kitchen are at ground floor, with bedrooms and bathrooms at basement level. It is occupied as a dwelling. I note that the appeal application was submitted retrospectively to cover the ‘as built’ changes from the approved scheme, along with proposed alterations to the front boundary and function of the rooms at basement level. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of future occupiers; and, • highway safety.

The form and character of the dwellings in the area is varied, comprising two storey dwellings and bungalows in varying plot sizes. There is not a particularly consistent building line. The hilly land surrounding the appeal site means that some dwellings sit at a higher level than the road, with others slightly below it. As acknowledged by the previous Inspector, the area has a spacious and eclectic character. Despite the variety in built form locally, front boundary treatments are consistent and are largely open or at a low level.

The proposed boundary treatment would comprise a rendered wall, topped by a timber slatted fence set between rendered pillars. A sliding solid vehicular gate is proposed. Even though the proposed wall and fence would be slightly lower and more visually permeable than as constructed, the proposal would still be at odds with the typical front boundary treatments in the immediate area which are generally open, lower or are planted. The overall effect, given the pillars and the scale of the vehicular gate, would be a solid, visually impermeable structure adjacent to the highway and would detract from the otherwise open, spacious character. It would fail to reflect or respect the character and appearance of the area.

In allowing the 2020 scheme, the Inspector noted that the limited above ground presence of the dwelling would mean that there would still be a good amount of visual space around it. As proposed (and constructed), the dwelling would have a far greater presence in street views given that it extends nearly the full width of the plot.

Whilst this may be so, it is nevertheless confined to a single storey above ground and is viewed in the context of the adjacent garages and two storey buildings beyond. The evidence indicates that the built coverage of the plot would be comparable to surrounding dwellings. In this context, whilst the proposals would be more prominent in the street scene than the 2020 scheme, I do not consider this would result in an unacceptable degree of harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surroundings. Nevertheless, this does not negate the harm arising from the boundary treatment identified above.

To conclude on this main issue therefore, due to the height and solidity of the boundary treatment, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policy CP12 of Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One (2016) and Policy DM18 of the City Plan Part Two (2022), Policy H2 of the Coldean Neighbourhood Plan (2025), as well as Supplementary Planning Document 17 Urban Design Framework (2021) insofar as they require new development to achieve a high standard of design, respect local character and provide a positive contribution to a sense of place.

The proposal is for a two-bedroom house. The bedrooms would be located at basement level. Despite the third bedroom being labelled as a cinema room, the Council consider the dwelling would effectively comprise three bedrooms and would be capable of accommodating up to 6 people. As set out in the preliminary matters, I have assessed the scheme on the basis of the specific proposal, which is a two-bedroom house.

The main bedroom, labelled as bedroom 2 on the drawings, would have light and ventilation provided via the French doors onto the courtyard in addition to a fixed rooflight. Whilst the outlook would be very limited due to the depth and scale of the courtyard, there would nevertheless be adequate light and ventilation provided by the openable windows.

The second bedroom, labelled as bedroom 3 on the drawings, would be served by a fixed rooflight. There would not be any outlook, and there is little evidence to suggest how the room would be ventilated.

The cinema room is shown as having a proposed rooflight. The rooflight’s location on the ground floor plan does not correspond with the position of the room at basement level. However, in the context of its proposed function, I do not regard this as harmful.

Policy DM1 of the City Plan Part Two, in requiring the provision of useable private outdoor amenity space, does not quantify the space according to the type or size of dwelling proposed. The courtyard, whilst significantly reduced from the 2020 scheme, would provide sufficient space for sitting. Nevertheless, the small footprint, along with high walls to each side and would lead it to feel overshadowed and enclosed. There is limited evidence before me that it would be capable of receiving much sunlight. Although it would be capable of being used for sitting out, I do not consider that owing to its configuration and size it would be a genuinely useable recreational space for a dwelling of the size proposed.

Whilst the Inspector in allowing the 2020 scheme acknowledged that a courtyard was a common layout in residential development, this was in relation to a significantly larger courtyard providing direct access via French doors to the living area and a bedroom.

There is no dispute regarding the quality of the living accommodation at ground floor level which would be acceptable in terms of its size, outlook and daylighting. Even when considering the quality of accommodation as a whole, I do not regard the quality of the living accommodation at ground floor to sufficiently compensate for the poor outlook and ventilation of the second bedroom and the quality of the amenity space.

Taken together, the lack of outlook or means of ventilation to the second bedroom, along with the quality of amenity space, would in my view be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers of the dwelling. This would conflict with Policies DM1 and DM20 of City Plan Part Two, as well as Coldean NP Policy H2 (d). Taken together, and amongst other things, these policies require new residential development to provide useable private outdoor amenity space appropriate to the scale and character of the development, along with protecting the amenity of proposed residents.

The boundary treatment before me includes 1.8m high pillars, a solid sliding gate and slatted fencing above rendered walls. [name] appreciate the principle of parking and access in this location is not in dispute, the boundary treatment, depending on its design and height has the potential to restrict drivers’ visibility to the extent that it would compromise highway safety.

Given the height of the pillars and fence either side of the gate, it is likely that they would obscure sightlines. It is unclear how the proposed gate would operate effectively given its width relative to the boundary walls, and as proposed it would not sufficiently retract to allow the full width of the opening to be revealed. There is little evidence that the boundary treatment would be sufficiently visually permeable to allow any visibility to drivers exiting onto the highway. As a consequence, highway safety would be compromised when vehicles are manoeuvring from the parking area onto the highway. No substantive evidence has been provided which would lead me to conclude that the height of the pillars, gate and walls would not cause an unacceptable obstruction to sightlines.

In conclusion on this main issue, I find that the proposal would harm highway safety and it would conflict with Policy DM33 of City Plan Part Two. The policy seeks to ensure new developments are designed in a way that is safe for all users and do not create road safety problems or dangers for any road user.

Whilst the Council also refers to Policy CP9 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One, this is a more strategic policy regarding sustainable transport and is not directly relevant.

I note the appellant’s suggestion that appearance and highway safety of the boundary treatment would be capable of being resolved by condition. However, given the potential extent of alteration required to achieve appropriate visibility splays and an appropriate appearance, this could result in a significantly different scheme. Neither would the use of a condition in this respect mitigate the harm arising to the living conditions of future occupiers.

I have had regard to other matters raised including, but not limited to, the presence of a container adjacent to the site, the presence of bins on the highway and the proposed use of the building. [name] am dismissing the appeal on the main issues for the reasons given above, I have not pursued these matters further.

Set against the harm identified, the proposal would deliver a net gain of one new dwelling. The scheme would be an efficient use of land in a sustainable location. This would support the Government’s aim of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The dwelling would exceed the [name]. The addition of a single dwelling would contribute to the Council’s housing stock and as such I attach moderate weight to this benefit. There would be temporary and ongoing economic benefits from the development through future residents’ use of local shops and services, but given the single additional dwelling, those benefits would be limited.

The Council acknowledges that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites and state that the reported supply is equivalent to 1.4 years. In these circumstances, paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is applicable. Footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed out-of-date. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The benefits associated with a single additional dwelling would be limited given the Framework’s objective of boosting significantly the supply of housing, and the Council’s housing land supply position.

The Framework states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. It also seeks to ensure that places are created that have a high standard of amenity and that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

The harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area, to the living conditions of future occupiers and to highway safety, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.