Appeal 6005887

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the address given in the appellant's appeal statement and Council’s decision notice as this better identifies the site location.

The Council advises in its appeal statement that following the advice of its [name], the Council no longer wishes to pursue reason for [name].3 ([name]). Having considered the matter and the evidence submitted, I have no reason to reach a different view. It has therefore not been necessary to consider this matter further.

The appellant states that the appeal site was formerly land associated with No [address] (No.1) but has been legally separated from it and is no longer associated with that property. The appellant considers that the appeal site, therefore, constitutes an established self-contained plot. However, land ownership is a separate matter which falls outside the planning issues before me. In this appeal, the planning unit of No.1 comprises the dwelling and its curtilage which includes part of the garden, the on-site parking and the garage which form the appeal site. Therefore, I shall consider the appeal site as well as any effects on the remainder of the planning unit (No.1).

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of No.[address] as a result of overbearing; and • Whether or not the proposal would make adequate provision for parking.

The appeal site is a roughly rectangular parcel of land lying between No.1 and [address] (No.3a). It has a road frontage and is currently occupied by a small, brick garage with a concrete hardstanding to the frontage and lawned area to the rear.

The site is located within a mainly residential area with houses of mixed character which I saw included older two storey cottages, and more recent two storey dwellings and dormer bungalows. These are typically staggered down [address], which is steeply sloping and narrow, without pavements. No.1 and other older properties are sited closer to the road but more typically dwellings are set back behind front gardens and parking areas. I saw that plots along the road were reasonably wide which has allowed for side garages and subordinate extensions, whilst retaining a reasonable degree of openness between dwellings.

The appeal proposal seeks to demolish the garage and construct a two-storey dwelling with a pitched roof and a single storey, flat roof element at the rear. It would be constructed in brick with a rendered lower band and a slate roof. The dwelling would be sited alongside the gable end of No.3a and would fill most of the width of its plot. At the frontage would be four car parking spaces, providing two spaces each for the proposed dwelling and No.1.

Although the proposed dwelling would be set back in line with No.[address], it would occupy a narrow plot and given its width and lack of space to either side, the dwelling would appear squeezed in to the site, failing to reflect the openness in the area that I have described. The building’s narrow form and significant vertical scale, including a higher ridge and eaves height than the adjoining dwellings, would further increase the presence of the building. All in all, it would appear cramped within its plot, out of place in the streetscene and would be clearly read in views up the road. When combined with the proposed parking of four cars within the site frontage, allowing little opportunity for soft landscaping, the proposal would represent a significant overdevelopment of the plot.

I have had regard to the appellant’s examples of existing ‘infill dwellings’ within the wider settlement but not knowing the background to these dwellings or their exact circumstances, it is difficult to draw any comparisons. It does not appear that these buildings or their contexts are relevant to the appeal site before me.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with ENV2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2023) (ECLP) which amongst other things requires development to be designed to enhance and complement local distinctiveness. It would also conflict with Policy SUT 19 of the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to avoid developments with car dominated frontages. It would fail to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to achieve well designed places.

The proposed dwelling would be sited directly alongside the part of the remaining rear garden of No.1 which is closest to the house. No.1a is also located to the rear of No.1 and its slightly elevated ground levels and tall gable already has an enclosing effect on the garden of No.1. The proposed dwelling would significantly increase that feeling of enclosure, confining much of the rear garden between high and imposing walls, and would have an oppressive and overbearing effect as well as limiting the outlook. The enclosing caused by the proposed dwelling would be exacerbated by removing garden area that the house formerly enjoyed and its location to the south. Even though the rear part of the proposed dwelling has been reduced to single storey, the large expanse of brickwork against the new boundary and the height of the walling alongside the garden would continue that overbearing effect on the garden area. All in all, it would hamper the enjoyment of that outdoor space by the occupants of No.1 and their outlook from the property.

I saw in the immediate area that there were examples of properties sitting adjacent to neighbouring gardens. However, these did not appear to be such large buildings running close to and for a considerable length alongside a boundary. Nor did they seem to have such narrow garden areas or appear to be hemmed in on both sides by buildings. In the examples given by the appellant, the plots and garden sizes of these properties are typically of much greater width, and many adjoining properties are sited further from the boundary. None of these examples appear to present the same degree of enclosure to the garden area as in the case before me such that I would conclude differently on this matter. I will therefore determine this appeal on the merits of this case, including its specific context.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No.[address] as a result of overbearing. It would conflict with ECLP Policy ENV2 which seeks to ensure that there are no significantly detrimental effects on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. Conflict would also occur with the Framework which seeks to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The two parking spaces for both the appeal dwelling and No.1 would be located at the site frontage and would be two car depth. Notwithstanding the adverse visual effect that I have already mentioned, the provision would appear to meet the parking needs for both dwellings and I note that the Highways Authority has not objected to the scheme, subject to conditions. However, fundamental concerns have been raised regarding the parking provision for No. 1 as this does not form part of the appeal site. Therefore, any future owner of the proposed dwelling could remove the right for the occupants of No.1 to use the parking spaces. This could leave the dwelling without any parking provision and given the narrowness of the road and unsuitability for off-street parking, this situation would be unacceptable.

The appellant suggests that the parking for No.1 could be secured by planning condition and/or a Section 106 legal agreement. However, a condition which seeks to secure parking for a dwelling that lies outside the appeal site, would fail the relevance and enforceability tests. Also, as there is no legal agreement before me, there would appear to be nothing to prevent the spaces being removed or reallocated in the future. Regardless, this matter would not be determinative as I have found harm for other reasons.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not make adequate provision for parking. It would conflict with ECLP Policy COM8, which requires that development makes adequate provision for parking, and The Framework which requires that developments function well.

The development would provide one dwelling which would add to the overall stock and choice of residential dwellings and support the supply of homes. A boost to housing supply is an important Framework consideration in favour of the development, a matter re-emphasised in the draft version of the Framework published for consultation. The development plan and Framework also recognise the important contribution that small and windfall sites can make towards meeting the housing requirement in an area. It would also attempt to make effective use of the land within an established residential area. However, considering these benefits, given the size of the development proposed, they would be modest in scale, and I attribute them limited weight.

In terms of the adverse impacts that I have identified, I have found that it is not possible for them to be satisfactorily mitigated and they weigh heavily against the scheme. Therefore, in the planning balance, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.