Appeal 6005591

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is in a town centre location with the ground floor in commercial use. Two of the proposed four flats (Flats 1 & 3) would face [address]. The front elevation of these flats would be recessed from the floor below. Each of the two flats would have a bedroom window and a door on the front elevation, leading to a veranda. As the flats would be single aspect, these would be the only external openings. The remaining two flats would be to the rear.

Due to measured high levels of external noise emanating from the traffic on [address], and external plant at the rear of the host building, the appellant’s Environmental Noise Assessment (ENA) identifies that acceptable limits on internal noise levels would be exceeded if windows are open in the flats. The ENA identifies that the highest noise impact arises from the traffic noise on the front façade, day and night.

To address this, the ENA recommends mitigation measures in the form of double glazing and a passive or mechanical ventilation solution. The Environmental Health Officer did not object to the application. They recommended that a mechanical ventilation system should be installed, subject to condition. This would allow future residents to ventilate their accommodation without opening their windows. Both parties accept that the use of such a measure would be effective in reducing noise within the flats to levels recommended within BS8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings.

However, notwithstanding the suggested measure, the local planning authority is concerned that future residents would have to choose between mechanical ventilation or experience unacceptable noise levels when the windows are open, which they consider would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers.

I note from the appellant’s submissions that such systems are frequently used in busy urban locations and have been used in numerous residential developments within Bedford, including Nos 70 and [address], [address] and 4-6 Broadway. However, I have limited information before me which would allow me to make a direct comparison with those schemes. For example, occupiers within those developments may have the option of opening windows that face away from noise sources. I cannot therefore be sure that those examples are similar. In any case, I have considered this case on its own merits.

I acknowledge that road noise is more consistent than noise from other sources such as pubs, and that as the site is adjacent to a road in a busy town centre, future residents may expect to experience a degree of steady background traffic noise. However, I consider that the need to keep the windows closed to achieve an acceptable acoustic environment would leave future occupiers living in a sealed space, reliant on mechanical ventilation. Whilst future occupiers could open their windows, in doing so it would undermine the proposed mitigation, which relies on the windows being closed, with occupiers then being exposed to high levels of road noise. In my view, this would create an oppressive environment, particularly as flats 1 and 3 only have openings on the front elevation which is more exposed to the road noise.

In this instance, whilst I accept noise could be mitigated to reduce the adverse impacts, I find the resulting need to shut the windows unsatisfactory. It would not provide a good standard of amenity, regardless of whether or not future occupants have chosen to live there. This issue would be particularly notable during periods of warmer weather.

In conclusion, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, in conflict with Policy 32 (i) and (iii) and Policy 47S (ii) and (v) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (LP). Together these seek to ensure development proposals minimise and take account of the effects of disturbance and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life. It would also conflict with the Framework which seeks to create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users.

Policy 2S (iii) of the LP has been cited on the decision notice. However, as this relates to the provision of strategies which reduce health inequalities I do not find it determinate on the main issue.

I note that a similar application for four flats at the appeal site was approved in

Whilst the Environmental Team raised no concerns regarding traffic noise, I do not have the noise report associated with that application before me. I therefore cannot be certain the circumstances in relation to noise are the same. As that application was nearly 10 years ago, traffic levels and associated noise may have increased. I therefore give the previous approval limited weight. 1 Ref: 16/02908/FUL

The property is within the Bedford Conservation Area (CA). Although the Council has raised no concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on this designated heritage asset, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

[address] features a mix of building styles, heights and materials of varying ages. The significance of the CA is derived, in part, from the quality of retained historic buildings. The appeal property is a modern, three storey property identified as having a negative impact on the CA’s character due to its form and massing relative to the nearby surrounding older traditional properties.

Although the proposed additional floor would increase the height of the building, the openings would align with those on the floors below. Furthermore, because the additional floor would be recessed from the existing front elevation, it would not be unduly overbearing nor readily perceptible from within the street scene and would not detract from the nearby historic buildings. Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm the significance of the CA and would preserve the character of the CA.

The proposal would provide 4 dwellings in an accessible town centre location on previously developed land. These properties would make a positive contribution towards the housing supply in a Borough which cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Given the quantum of development, I afford this benefit moderate weight.

No harm has been identified to the CA, neighbouring amenity or highway safety. However, an absence of harm on these matters is of neutral weight in the planning balance.

The Framework seeks to create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users. I have found that the proposal would not provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. I afford significant weight to this harm.

The adverse impacts 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, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does therefore not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.