Appeal 6005579

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the development which is the subject of this appeal has already been carried out (notwithstanding what is stated in the application form), the application is to be treated as one made under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The “Description of [address]” that is given in the planning application form is extensive. Notwithstanding this description, therefore, the nature of the proposal can more clearly and succinctly be expressed as “the change of use of an existing mobile home to use as a permanent dwelling with an independent access” reflecting the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form. I note that “retention” (as stated in the decision notice and the appeal form) is not an act of development.

The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surroundings. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by disturbance or intrusion on privacy). The third is whether the scheme would provide satisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the mobile home.

The appeal site is located in a suburban area in the south-east part of Witham. [address] is residential in character, with predominantly two-storey houses, often in Appeal Decision: 6005579 semi-detached pairs, set back from the road. The streetscene lacks trees but the layout is spacious, with wide grass verges and front gardens (although some gardens include off-street parking spaces). The houses typically have the benefit of good-sized back gardens.

Number [site address] is a two-storey house, of brickwork under a pitched, tiled roof. It is linked at first floor level to number 38, which is also a two-storey house. It is also linked to number 42, which is a single-storey home, built in the same style as its neighbours nevertheless. Numbers 40 and [address].

The appeal site is located at the rear of numbers 40 and 42, with pedestrian access through the passageway between numbers 38 and 40. The site comprises an open garden area, with the mobile home sited alongside the south-west boundary. A number of other structures, including outbuildings and a small caravan, are ranged around the edges of the plot. The site is adjoined by the back gardens of other houses with a footpath alongside the south-west boundary of the plot. This footpath connects [address] (between numbers 42 and 44) to a garage courtyard that lies to the west of the appeal site, with vehicular access from [address]. The appeal site does not have a road frontage.

It has been explained that the current appeal site had originally been part of the property at number [site address] and that the caravan had been occupied by the current appellant while other members of the same family were living in the house. Number [site address] has been sold separately, however, while the appellant continues to live in the mobile home.

This appeal seeks planning permission for the mobile home as a separate, permanent dwelling, with independent access. The application is made retrospectively, therefore.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. In the ‘Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033’, Section 1 is the “[name] Section” (adopted in February 2021), while Section 2 focusses on the area of Braintree, more specifically.

Policy SP7 (in Section 1) is concerned with “[name]”, seeking to achieve high standards of urban and architectural design, responding to local character and context.

In section 2 of the ‘Local Plan’, attention has been drawn to Policies LPP35 and LPP52 which are focussed on housing design and layout. Among other things, they seek to achieve good design and recognition of the existing character of the surroundings, while acknowledging the need for variety and the potential for innovation. They also recognise the need to protect existing residential amenities Appeal Decision: 6005579 and the need to ensure that new dwellings benefit from good standards of accommodation.

The ‘[name] is also relevant but it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan.

The mobile home at the rear of numbers 40 and [address] is sited on a plot that is approximately rectangular in shape, behind the main frontage development in [address] and [address]. The plot itself has an unconventional layout, with the mobile home located alongside one of the plot boundaries and a caravan and smaller outbuildings ranged around the site perimeter. These appear to be occupied mainly by a variety of domestic paraphernalia. The centre of the plot is laid to grass, with a collection of pot plants and shrubs or small trees.

Access to the appeal site is obtained through a narrow pedestrian pathway between numbers 40 and [address], although the footpath that links [address] and [address] (through the garage court) adjoins the south-west boundary of the appeal site.

The mobile home itself is of panel construction with a very shallow pitched roof. It is raised off the ground on a visible metal structural frame. In external appearance, of course, it is very different from the conventional brick-built houses that predominate in the area.

Internally, the mobile home is somewhat cramped, with two-bedrooms, although it is suggested that one of these could be redesignated as a “Carer’s room/study”. I accept, however, that the interior could be reorganised to achieve compliance with the ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ as a one-person unit. I also accept that the living room window that overlooks the rear garden of number 42 could be treated to ensure that it would be permanently obscured (having been covered by film in the meantime), subject to a planning

The mobile home is located in a “backland” area, between main frontages, having been created from an area of back garden land. It is not in accord with the urban grain of the area and is not in keeping with the surroundings. Moreover, the form of construction is very different from the predominant form of construction in the locality and the unit does not have a permanent character, due to its form and construction. I conclude that the development is incongruous and out of character with the setting and that it does have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surroundings.

The current layout of the plot and its access relies upon a narrow pedestrian footpath that impinges on its neighbours, and I am not persuaded that this could be improved by the creation of a new access. Moreover, the use of the plot itself as a separate, permanent dwelling would be likely to give rise to undue disturbance to neighbours. Hence, I have formed the opinion that, if made permanent, the scheme would be likely to give rise to unacceptable intrusion and disturbance to neighbours, arising from the plot itself and from the access.

I acknowledge that the mobile home itself could be adapted to improve the internal layout but it would provide only a single bedroom, while the plot as a whole suffers, in my view, from overlooking by neighbours. Thus, living conditions for the occupiers would also be poor and unsatisfactory for the long term. Appeal Decision: 6005579

Hence, I am convinced that there are serious planning objections to the proposed retention of the mobile home as a permanent dwelling and I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it ought not to be allowed, in principle.

It has been suggested that the site could be better screened by additional planting but this would not be sufficient to overcome these objections, in my view.

Nevertheless, various arguments have been put forward in support of the proposal, which need to be considered.

First, it is pointed out that the mobile home has been in place for a number of years. It appears that it was originally used as ancillary accommodation to the main house, although only limited information is provided about the relationship between the two. Even so, I do not find that the mobile home has become assimilated into its surroundings. It still stands out as an incongruous feature in the townscape and the use of the plot as an independent dwelling is out of character with the surroundings.

It has also been explained that the appellant is disabled and in need of support. The personal circumstances of the appellant are a material consideration in this case, but I am conscious that these can change over time and that, in the longer term, a permanent residence would be created. In any case, the mobile home would not be large enough to also accommodate a live-in carer. In the circumstances, then, this consideration is insufficient to outweigh the planning objections that have been identified.

In forming that opinion, I have considered whether the appeal could be allowed but subject to conditions that might address this concern, for example by imposing a time-limited or personal condition. In view of all the uncertainties involved, however, I have formed the opinion that it would not be possible to frame precise conditions that would be reasonable and enforceable.

Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the objections to the scheme very clearly outweigh the planning benefits and that planning permission ought not to be granted for it. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.