Appeal 6005954

The appeal is dismissed.

I have amended the description of development in the heading above from that used on the application form to remove the words ‘part retrospective’ as this is not a description of the development seeking consent. The Council also added ‘erection of front porch’ to the description and I have also included this in the heading above. I also note that whilst the description included the words ‘part retrospective,’ the application form indicates that work and the change of use has not commenced.

The Council has referred to Policies PSP38 and PSP39 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (LP) in its second reason for refusal (RFR). Neither Policy PSP38 nor Policy PSP39 of the LP relate to internal space for the future occupants of new development. Both Policy PSP38 and Policy PSP39 require development, including sub-divisions, to provide adequate private amenity space and protect the amenities of neighbours. Based on the evidence before me, the reason for refusal should have referred to Policy PSP8 on [name]. For the assessment of the second RFR, I have therefore referenced Policy PSP8, as used by the Appellant in their evidence, rather than Policies PSP38 and PSP39.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development, namely the proposed rear dormer, on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. • The effect of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to the provision of parking and associated manoeuvring space; and • Whether suitable living conditions for the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be provided with regard to internal space.

[site address] (No 92) is a two-storey, hipped roof, semi-detached dwelling located on the corner of [address] and [address], from which its rear elevation, particularly its roof slope, is visible. A large garage building is located to the rear of the property and is accessed through the rear garden, off [address]. The appeal site is in an established residential area, which predominantly comprises two-storey semi-detached dwellings. Construction of a two-storey side, and a single storey rear extension, have already been commenced at the property, which have not been fully completed. A large box dormer window which extends above and beyond the existing ridge line is located on the rear roof slope of the existing dwelling.

Most of the neighbouring properties have not been substantially altered, extended, or have dormer windows in their rear roof slopes. The uniform nature of the dwellings leads to a structured character and appearance of the area. Due to the works that have already taken place, the dwelling makes a neutral contribution to this character and appearance.

The proposal is for the sub-division of No 92 to form two dwellings, one of which would be located within the constructed two-storey side extension (ref P20/18977/F). To the rear elevation, a pitched roof dormer window is proposed to the rear roof slope of the side extension.

The dormer window would sit next to the existing flat roofed box dormer window. Whilst sitting within the confines of the roof slope, its ridge height would match the ridge height of the side extension’s roof and would occupy most of the rear roof slope to the side extension. Between the existing dormer and the proposed dormer, little roof slope would be visible between the two structures.

The existing box dormer window already dominates the appeal property’s roof slope. The addition of a further dormer window would harmfully add to the bulk of additions within the roof and would appear further incongruous due to its differing form and appearance, all of which is highly visible from [address]. The discordant dormer would harmfully assist in both the existing and proposed roof additions dominating the overall character and appearance of the property, altering the side extension’s modest appearance, and detracting and eroding the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

Consequently, the proposal, as a result of its scale, design and siting, would result in harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) (CS) and Policies PSP1, PSP38 and PSP39 of the LP which seek to ensure that development is of a high standard of design and does not harm the character and amenity of the area. The proposal would also conflict with the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

No 92 has three bedrooms, whilst the proposed new dwelling would have two bedrooms. The existing dwelling has a double garage and a further two parking spaces to the rear accessed from [address]. The proposal would divide the double garage between the two dwellings. Parking for two vehicles to the front of No 92 would be provided. The existing two spaces to the rear of the appeal property and accessed from the existing dropped kerb on [address] would be provided for use by occupiers of the new dwelling, providing two spaces for both dwellings.

Policy PSP16 of the LP requires three-bedroom dwellings to have a minimum of two parking spaces, whilst a two-bedroom property would require one space. Consequently, the proposal, with four proposed spaces, would provide the required number.

However, the spaces proposed to the front of No 92 appear to be constrained in width if both spaces were in use, as they fall below the required 3m width. These spaces also appear to fall below the required 5.5m length specified in Policy PSP16. This could lead to vehicles overhanging the footway, causing obstruction in the highway.

The Council’s Highway Officer raised no objections to the proposal as the number of off-street parking spaces proposed meet the policy requirements. However, the spaces proposed to the front of No 92 would not meet the policy requirements in terms of size. I am not therefore satisfied that there is sufficient space available for two vehicles to park, manoeuvre, enter and exit onto the highway safely. As such, the proposal would not provide the required number of off-street parking spaces for the number of dwellings proposed.

Accordingly, the proposed development would be unacceptable in relation to highway safety regarding the provision of parking. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies PSP11 and PSP16 of the LP, which require the appropriate level of safe parking facilities for new development to be met and for development to have an acceptable impact on highway and road safety.

The proposed development would see the creation of a two-bedroom dwelling. Policy PSP8 seeks to ensure there would be acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the development and of nearby properties. It does not however, indicate that the [name] (NDSS) are triggered and should be applied. Based on the evidence before me, the NDSS are not relevant to this scheme.

Although the dwelling would be of a modest size, each of the two bedrooms would not be unduly small. I note the concern regarding head height and useable floor space for bedroom one. However, based on the proposed layout plans, there would be reasonable living and circulation space within the bedrooms. There would also be opportunities within each of the bedrooms to provide storage. The third room is labelled as a study and whilst a single bed could be accommodated, the room would be too small to accommodate further items of furniture along with circulation space to satisfactorily be used as a bedroom.

Overall, the gross internal area of the dwelling would be around 80sq.m, which would provide a suitable level of space for the future occupiers of the dwelling. As such, I consider that the internal living environment would be acceptable and there would be adequate living conditions for the future occupants in accordance with Policy PSP8 of the LP, the requirement of which, amongst other things, has been set out above.

It is noted that the appellant has sought to address the concerns raised by the Council in earlier planning applications (P24/02187/HH and P25/01753/F) and by the Inspectors in the related appeal decisions (6001945, APP/P0119/C/25 3361438, APP/P0119/D/25/3361207 and APP/P0119/D/3360066). I also note that the Council has not previously raised highway safety concerns regarding the size of parking spaces. Nonetheless, for the reasons identified above, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area and would have a harmful impact on highway safety.

The Council has confirmed that it is not able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that in these circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. With 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 having been taken into consideration.

Paragraph 73 of the Framework recognises that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. Socially, and considering the shortfall in the area’s housing supply, the provision of one additional dwelling would make a valuable contribution to the Council’s housing land supply and thus would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. However, the contribution of one dwelling would be modest, even in the context that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

The appeal scheme would also provide some modest economic and social benefits associated with the construction of the dwelling and its subsequent occupation, including support for the existing local services and facilities. However, given the limited scale of the development and noting that most of the development has already been built, I attach limited weight to the development’s positive contributions in this regard.

However, on the other hand, I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. The proposed development would not satisfy the Framework’s key policy at paragraph 135. These support development that function well and add to the overall quality of the area, are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and are sympathetic to local character and amenity. I therefore afford considerable weight to the proposal’s conflict with Policies CS1 of the CS and PSP1, PSP38 and PSP39 of the LP.

I also afford considerable weight to the harmful effect on highway safety in relation to the parking provision for No 92.

[name] have found the proposed development acceptable in relation to the provision of internal space, I consider this matter neutral in the planning balance.

Consequently, whilst the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, the adverse impacts of the proposal and conflict with Policies CS1 of the CS and PSP1, PSP11, PSP16, PSP38 and PSP39 of the LP would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the delivery of one dwelling, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

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. Therefore, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] (INSPECTOR)