Appeal 6005222

The appeal is dismissed.

In a previous appeal decision, outline planning permission (including access) was granted for a new single storey dwelling with garaging (‘the allowed appeal’)1. The Inspector made clear that, other than the access, the accompanying block plan was treated as indicative only. A subsequent application for reserved matters pursuant to the allowed appeal was refused by the Council (‘the REM scheme’)2. I have had regard to that planning history in my reasoning below.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Amongst other things, and in general terms, Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan 2011 - 2036 (2020) (‘SKLP’) sets out that development proposals will be expected to make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness, vernacular and character of the area, and should be of an appropriate scale, density, massing, height and materials for their context. SKLP Policy SP3 also states that infill development within settlements will be supported provided that it is in keeping with the character of the area.

The appeal site forms part of the large rear garden of [site address] , within the settlement of Thurlby. I observed that whilst there is no consistent pattern or style to the nearby, predominantly residential, development, which is finished in a variety 1 APP/E2530/W/22/3294258 2 S25/1416 Appeal Decision: 6005222 of materials, the houses tend to be set within large plots, which contribute to the area’s spacious character. They are also predominantly two storeys high, although there is also a bungalow with a roughly ‘L’ shaped footprint and a separate garage/office building to the rear. The bulk and mass of the substantial two storey property at 23 The Green is alleviated by two distinct rear gables with a lower eaves line.

The proposed dwelling would be single storey. However, it would have a substantial footprint and, based on the appellant’s calculations, a floor area of around 193sqm. Although it would have just three bedrooms, it would include large kitchen/dining/lounge areas, a utility and an integral garage.

Compared to this scheme, and having regard to the site plan and my observations, most nearby buildings have either a significantly smaller footprint, or their form includes more articulation which breaks up their perceived mass to a much greater degree. Given this building’s substantial and fairly rectilinear footprint, its proportions and its limited articulation, it would have a squat and sprawling mass.

Low flat-roofed buildings close to the plot’s eastern boundary would be demolished. However, although the plot is large, at points the proposed dwelling would extend close to the front and side boundaries, close to a retained outbuilding on the site’s western boundary, and close to the two storey dwelling at [address]. Thus, whilst the proposed dwelling would be barely visible from public vantage points, viewed from neighbouring properties, including over retained vegetation and boundary treatment from their upper floors, it would have a cramped and discordant appearance, which would jar with the area’s generally more spacious character.

Whilst the proposed bungalow would be smaller compared to the REM scheme, the allowed appeal did not grant planning permission for a 200sqm dwelling as claimed by the appellant, and this scheme would not be the small and sensitive development envisaged by that Inspector.

Summing up, notwithstanding the use of stone to respect the facing materials on some nearby dwellings, the building’s size, form and siting would make it appear cramped, out of context and visually isolated from its surroundings in this backland location, and it would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would thereby conflict with [name] DE3 and SP1, and with the requirements of Policies TNP09 and TNP11 of the Thurlby Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2018 - 2036 (2019) for high quality design which is sympathetic and appropriate to its context, having regard to form, scale and character.

It would also conflict with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) which sets out that development should be sympathetic to local character, with good design being a key aspect to sustainable development, and which states that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings is fundamental to what the planning process should achieve.

In its favour, the scheme would make an effective use of land to deliver a dwelling within a Larger Village as defined in the SKLP settlement hierarchy, and which has some services that the future occupants could use and help support. There would also be economic benefits during construction. Given that the scheme is for a Appeal Decision: 6005222 single dwelling, these modest benefits, which find support from the Framework, carry limited weight in its favour.

The Council acknowledges that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, as required by the Framework. As the proposal would make a modest contribution of one unit to its housing supply, I attach moderate weight to that benefit.

I have found that the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. In that regard it would be contrary to the development plan.

However, given that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, having regard to the Framework, those development plan policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out of date, and its paragraph 11d) is engaged.

This sets out that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this case, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, with particular regard to its stance on securing well-designed places, where good design is a key aspect to sustainable development. The scheme does not therefore benefit from the Framework’s presumption in favour.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, including representations from interested parties, the appeal is dismissed.