Appeal 6005939

The appeal is dismissed.

The application the subject of this appeal was submitted in tandem with an application for prior approval to change the use of [site address] from commercial to residential. That application was refused, citing a failure to provide cycle and refuse/recycle storage or safe access, and has not been appealed. A resubmission remains undetermined1.

On my site visit I was able to view the appeal site and the adjoining property [address] (No 9). Both the Council and the appellant have referred to [address], but it is clear from the parties’ submissions that they have assessed the impact of the proposal on No 9.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjoining properties with particular reference to outlook and noise; and • whether the proposal would make adequate provision for bin collection.

The proposed storage building would be sited at the rear of [site address] , replacing an existing smaller storage building that backs onto the rear boundary of No 9. From my site inspection, the rear wall of the existing storage building forms 1 LPA references 2025/2983 and 2026/0553 the boundary wall of No 9, with the corrugated roof of the building sitting on top of it. The length of No 9’s boundary that is not bounded by the storage building has a brick wall of similar height.

The proposed building would likewise incorporate the boundary wall. It would be offset from [site address] slightly more than the existing building, but would extend all the way across No 9’s rear boundary. No 9 has a small garden which wraps around the front, side and rear of the house, with the private part of the garden located behind the house. There are no windows facing directly towards the rear wall, but the kitchen window is at right angles to it.

The proposed building would be flat roofed and slightly higher than the existing storage building. Whilst the increase in height would be modest, it would raise the height of nearly all the rear wall of No 9. Such an outcome would affect the outlook from the rear garden and the kitchen. Because the rear garden is of such limited dimensions, any loss of outlook would significantly affect the living conditions of occupiers of the dwelling. As proposed, the storage building would unacceptably harm the outlook from No 9’s garden and kitchen.

The proposed store would, like the existing storage building, have two doors facing into the appeal site. As such, activity and odours within the building are unlikely to directly affect nearby residents, provided the building is satisfactorily sound proofed and sealed, which could be controlled by condition were I minded to allow the appeal. Likewise, the risks of fire, vermin and spillages could be controlled through careful design and appropriate planning conditions.

The current building accommodates bicycles, whilst the proposed building would accommodate both bicycles and bins for the proposed residential accommodation. I observed on my site visit that, although the site is currently vacant, bins are located near the site entrance off [address]. Under the proposal, bin collection in future would take place further into the site, in an area bounded by residential properties. Such collections, even if weekly and lasting for a relatively short period of time, would introduce disturbance into an area where currently cars manoeuvring appears to be the main source of noise. In the absence of a noise report which confirms background noise levels and models refuse collection activities, I cannot be certain that disturbance would not be caused to residents.

I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of adjoining properties owing to a loss of outlook and increased noise. The proposal would be contrary to Policy CS17 of the [name] 2011 (CS) and Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan April 2015 (DMP), which together require new development to deliver high quality design which protects the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

The distance between the proposed bin store and the site entrance off [address] would be such that it would be likely to preclude bins being taken by hand to the site entrance. Consequently, refuse collection vehicles would need to drive into the site and, because the site is not wide enough for them to turn, they would need to either reverse into or out of the site.

The appellant has advised that collection vehicles currently visit [address] first and then reverse into the site entrance, and has supplied a swept path analysis which seeks to demonstrate how the existing arrangement could be adapted to serve the proposed bin store. However, the swept path relies on land outside the appellant’s control, and it is unclear whether the collection vehicle would reverse into or out of the site. Under either scenario, the collection vehicle would be required to reverse a significant distance along a route which the swept path analysis shows is very tight in places. Such a manoeuvre would raise safety concerns for both the collection vehicle and for other users of the access road.

The appellant has indicated that bin collection would be undertaken by a private refuse management company, which would either collect direct from the bin store or from a pre-arranged intermediate collection point. They point out that private operators routinely service sites with complex layouts, restricted access or extended drag distances, and are able to offer bespoke collection methods that local authority refuse vehicles cannot. However, in the absence of a clearly set out strategy for undertaking bin collection, it is not clear how bins would be collected safely. Such a strategy would need to explain how the gated access to [address] would be managed, and how [address] would be kept clear whilst bins were collected.

On the basis of the information before me, I conclude that the proposal makes inadequate provision for bin collection, with a consequent risk to highway safety. The proposal would conflict with Policy CS25 of the CS and Policy DM7 of the DMP, which together require the loading, unloading and turning of service vehicles to be designed to ensure highway and pedestrian safety. I have not found conflict with the Parking Supplementary Planning Document July 2020 which, in respect of servicing and loading facilities, covers only non-residential development.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.