Appeal 6005451

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for the future residents with particular regard to noise, disturbance, privacy, outlook, outdoor amenity space and security.

The appeal site comprises a four-storey block of apartments including a lower ground floor area, currently providing access to the rear. The drawings indicate that parking and refuse storage is also provided within this space. However, at the site visit, I noted that the area had already been enclosed by a combination of permanent and temporary fencing with the refuse storage relocated. The proposal would utilise some of the existing enclosed footprint and further enclose a portion of the lower ground floor to provide an additional one-bedroom apartment.

The kitchen area would be served by three windows. Nevertheless, they would all be high level with two of the windows facing the covered access, providing a poor outlook and creating a harmful sense of enclosure. As the windows would be high level, I am satisfied that there would be no inherent security issues associated.

Whilst the south facing kitchen window would provide sufficient light, it would be directly adjacent the communal access stair, with other residents able to view inside the apartment at proximity. A blind or obscure glazing could be used to protect the future resident’s privacy; however, this would further harm the outlook from the space.

In addition, whilst the windows serving the bedroom and dining/living space would be larger they would directly face a high-level fence in close proximity. Due to the height and distance of the fence from the windows, the bedroom and dining/living space would have an oppressive outlook.

Although modest in size, the outdoor amenity space would provide adequate space for essential activities such as drying clothes and sitting out in warmer months. Nevertheless, the small space would be enclosed by high level fencing and entirely overlooked by the upper floor flats of the block and of that adjacent, to the detriment of the future resident’s privacy. Due to the excessive dominance of the fencing and lack of privacy, I do not consider the outdoor amenity space to be of a good quality.

Future residents may be reluctant to open their windows due to the noise and disturbance associated with the vehicular access and car park. Nevertheless, the submitted acoustic report indicates that the noise climate would likely meet guidance as set out in BS8233 and by the World Health Organisation and I have no reason to disagree. Further, additional mitigations could be provided and secured by condition.

[name] am satisfied that the proposal would be adequate in terms of noise, disturbance and security, I conclude that the proposal would not provide adequate living conditions for future residents with particular regard to privacy, outlook and outdoor amenity space. It would conflict with Policies SP4 and LP9 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2024 – 2041 (July 2025) where amongst other things they require development to be of a high architectural quality, ensuring that the amenity of residents and users is protected.

Similarly, there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) where it requires that development functions well and creates places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The proposal would make efficient use of previously developed land, providing an additional dwelling in an accessible location. Short term employment would be provided during the construction and in the long term the future occupiers would benefit the local economy and community by helping to sustain the vitality and viability of local services and facilities. The Framework seeks to boost the supply of housing and highlights the important contribution small sites can make and the speed at which they can be delivered.

The appellant suggests that the proposal would provide a smaller, lower-cost residence in an area where there is demand for such. However, I have no mechanism before me which would secure the cost of the residence nor any substantiated evidence to demonstrate a local need.

The appeal site is within the [site address] Town Centre Conservation Area. In so far as is relevant to this appeal, its’ significance is derived from the mix of uses, building styles and materials combined with the visible history of the town. As the scheme would not largely alter the appearance of the appeal property nor materially alter its function, it would preserve the significance of the Conservation Area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions in the Framework and the benefits of the proposal, which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.