Appeal 6005656

The appeal is dismissed.

For clarity and certainty, I have used the description of development given on the Council’s Decision Notice in the banner heading above.

[name] of the Procedural Guide, Planning Appeals, England (2019) and the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advise that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme to overcome the Council’s reasons for refusal, rather a fresh planning application should usually be made. Moreover, it is important that the evidence which is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same as that which has been considered by the Council, and on which interested parties views were sought.

In certain circumstances a proposal can be amended through revised plans during an appeal. However, in line with the Wheatcroft Principles1, I can see that there are differences between the proposal that was considered by the Council and the revised scheme. As such, it is my view that the appeal must be determined on the basis of the plans as originally submitted to the Council and upon which it based its decision. To do otherwise would prejudice not only the interests of the Council but also the interested third parties and consultees which may have observations to make on the revised scheme. I have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the plans as originally submitted. 1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (JPL, 1982, P37)

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; • highway safety with particular reference to parking and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists; and • the living conditions of future occupants, with particular regard to outlook, privacy and noise.

The appeal property is a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling which is broadly typical of properties on [address]. A predominant characteristic of the frontage of properties includes portions of the front garden space being given over to hard-standing areas associated with off-street parking.

The proposed development would be located in an established residential area where the principle of development is accepted. However, the frontage to the appeal property does not exhibit any sign of boundary treatment or provide any sense of enclosure. The current use of land to the front of the property includes an area of stone flagging and the storage of materials associated with ongoing renovation works. The proposed development seeks to retain the space to the frontage of the property as an area for car parking. Nevertheless, even though it falls to the appellant to do so, there are no proposals in the evidence before me that show any form of boundary treatment. Moreover, due to the need for key elements of the proposal to be located to the front of the appeal property, particularly the provision of car parking, even if acceptable materials were to be used, there would be insufficient space to accommodate any form of mitigation, such as soft landscaping.

In comparison, other examples on [address] where off-street parking is found to the frontage of properties this has been achieved by retaining a clear delineation between their private amenity space and the public highway through the use of appropriate boundary treatment, whether this be through low-level fencing, hedgerows or the planting of shrubbery. As such, these boundary treatments provide a clear sense of enclosure between private residential curtilages and the public highway, mitigating the visual impact of off-street car parking when viewed in the wider street scene.

The lack of boundary treatment and visual delineation between the private residential curtilage and the public highway at the appeal property is discordant with the wider character found on [address], particularly the broader sense of enclosure described. This is notable due to the sizeable length of open frontage to the appeal property and the proposed use of that entire frontage for car parking, which would be highly prominent and incongruous when viewed from the street.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would be obtrusive and visually discordant with the wider street scene and the broader pattern of development found on [address], causing harm to the wider character of the area. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy P10 of [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) which states that proposals will be supported where the scale, size, design and layout of development is appropriate to its context and respects the character and quality of surrounding buildings, streets and spaces. The proposed development would also be at odds with Policies GP5 and N25 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) which states that development should resolve detailed planning considerations, including issues of amenity, and that boundaries of sites should be designed in a positive manner, using walls, hedges or railings where appropriate to the character of the area.

The proposed development includes four vehicular parking bays to the frontage of the appeal property; the number of spaces and their broad dimensions are consistent with the ambitions of the Council’s Transport SPD. In addition to the parking bays, there would also be the provision of a bin storage area to the front of the development for future occupants.

I note from the submitted plans that there would be no designated space for pedestrians or cyclists to access the appeal property or the private amenity space to the rear where the bike storage area would be located.

As such, the limited space would make access and egress from the appeal property problematic for both future occupants and visitors. This would be particularly the case in instances where all the parking bays were occupied. In such instances access to and from the bike storage area to the rear of the property would not be achievable for bike users. Furthermore, access to the front door for occupants and visitors would represent a significant challenge, particularly for those with impaired mobility and those carrying baggage and bulky items.

Given the proposed development meets the requirement for car parking spaces as set out in the [name], I find nothing to substantiate the Council’s view that this would exacerbate a problem with on-street parking. However, the lack of delineated space for pedestrians and cyclists would lead to instances where future occupants and visitors are required to access or exit the appeal property between parked cars. This would be not only impractical but also brings pedestrians and cyclists into conflict with vehicle movements.

As a result, the proposal is contrary to Policies T2 and P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) which states that new development should include safe and secure access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with impaired mobility and that car parking, cycle, waste and recycling storage should be designed in a positive manner and be integral to development. The proposal would also not meet the aims of Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) which states that planning proposals should resolve detailed planning considerations, including matters of access and design, and seek to avoid problems such as loss of amenity and highway safety.

The proposed development would involve the creation of two flats on the ground floor (Flats 1 and 2) and two flats to the first floor (Flats 3 and 4) with access taken through the existing front door. [name] 1 would have a direct access into the rear garden area of the appeal property with Flats 2, 3 and 4 accessing the rear via the front door.

Flat 1, located to the ground floor, would include a lounge / dining area to the front and a bedroom area to the rear. The bedroom would include a French patio-style window affording prominent visibility into the bedroom space for any users of the rear and neighbouring garden areas and, due to its close proximity, users of the bike store. This prominent visibility into the main bedroom area of Flat 1 would lead to a harmful loss of privacy for the future occupier, particularly given the primary nature of the living space. Due to the shape of the garden area and the proximity of the rear window to the access point between the front and rear of the appeal property, there would be insufficient space to accommodate any form of mitigation, such as planting and screening, to offset the impact to privacy for future occupants of Flat 1.

The rear garden area of the appeal property is of a modest size and is broadly reflective in size to adjacent residential properties. The Council’s ‘Neighbourhoods for [name] sets out guidance around the appropriate levels of outlook to be achieved from windows, including from bedroom areas. While noting the appellants concern regarding the application of the SPD, the fact remains that the size and shape of the rear garden area would result in the rear window of Flat [address] proximity to both the proposed bike store to the rear and parking area to the front of the property. The proximity to these features, coupled with the lack of opportunity for soft landscaping to mitigate their impact, would lead to a series of overly dominating and unsympathetic features when viewed from the front and rear windows of Flat 1 which would diminish the outlook for future occupiers.

Moreover, the front windows of both Flats 1 and 2 would look out over the proposed car parking area to the frontage of the appeal property. The cramped nature of this parking area would require that vehicles would be parked closely to the front elevation of the property to ensure that they did not project out onto the public footpath. As such, when entering and exiting the parking space, the noise and disturbance created due to the starting of engines, the closing of car doors and their occupants moving between the vehicles and front door would occur directly under the main habitable windows of both Flats 1 and 2. These instances, particularly where they occur late at night or early in the morning, would harm the living conditions of the future occupiers of both flats. This would be particularly the case in instances where such windows are open.

To conclude, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of future occupants of the appeal property, specifically the future occupants of Flats 1 and 2 in regard to noise and disturbance and Flat 1 in regard to their privacy and outlook. As a result, the proposal is contrary to Policies P10 and H6 of [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) which promotes high quality design that protects residential amenity and states that development proposals for the conversion of existing houses into flats will be accepted where proposals provide satisfactory internal living accommodation in terms of daylight, outlook and juxtaposition of living rooms and bedrooms. The proposal is also not consistent with Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) which states that planning proposals should resolve detailed planning considerations and seek to avoid problems such as loss of amenity.

The appellant has set out a number of benefits to the proposal in support of his case which include; the sustainable location of the proposed development, the contribution made to the Government’s targets for housing delivery and the efficient use of urban land. This is noted but even in combination these matters do not outweigh the harm I have found above.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.