Appeal 6006061

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises part of the front, side and rear garden of No [site address] , a detached two-storey house at the end of a cul-de-sac. There is an existing wall and gate running from the side of the house which forms a wall to an outbuilding. This would be demolished and a new house is proposed to sit alongside No 35. This would include an area of front garden and a tapering section of rear garden to provide off-street parking space and a garden for the new house.

The cul-de-sac comprises a mix of detached two-storey houses in fairly generous plots. At the end of the cul-de-sac is a large property, [address], not accessed from Valley Drive. The proposed house would be located between No 35 and [address]. It would provide living accommodation on three floors with the upper floor having dormer windows on the rear elevation. From the road, approaching the end of the cul-de-sac, the proposed house would be partly screened by No 35 but it would project a short distance forward of it.

No 35 sits in a spacious plot allowing the proposed house to have generous proportions and be two and a half stories high. Amenity space at the front and rear would be provided. The proposed house would be notably narrower than those in the rest of the cul-de-sac and although the ridge height would be no higher than No 35’s, its design has a vertical emphasis, highlighted by the front pediment and higher eaves, especially compared with the long sloping roof of No 35. The relative narrowness of the house, its location in the side garden of No 35, the requirement to provide parking space that would take up some of the open space at the head of the cul-de-sac and the tapering rear garden would cumulatively result in a cramped and unsatisfactory appearance.

The appellant points out that the plot to building ratio is low and I appreciate that the design has been amended during the course of the planning application. However, whilst mathematical calculations can help define the impact of a development, they are not the only consideration. Also, whilst I do not disagree that the resulting design is preferable to the one initially submitted, in this context, on this narrow tapering site, this does not overcome the cramped appearance the resulting dwelling would have.

I conclude that due to the scale, location and appearance of the proposed dwelling, it would appear out of character with the surrounding area. This would conflict with Local Plan Strategy1 SE 1 and SE 2, Policy GEN 1 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document2 and Policy H1 of the [name] Plan3. Collectively these seek to ensure that development proposals make a positive contribution to their surroundings, take into account and reflect local character that is in keeping and proportionate to the existing character of the surrounding area and helps maintain a sense of quality and place.

I note that there are no objections from the Council with regard to trees, parking or highway issues, or the effects of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. A previous appeal is referred to but limited details have been submitted sufficient to allow me to draw any comparison between that proposal and the one before me. There are concerns raised by neighbours with regard to overlooking and loss of privacy and an adverse impact on parking. [name] have considered all matters raised, none alter my conclusion on my main issue.

I also note that the appellant was expecting a favourable outcome to the planning application and although this is clearly frustrating for the appellant, it is not a matter that affects my determination of the proposal before me.

The National Planning Framework indicates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and the proposal would have social and economic benefits resulting from the construction and provision of a new dwelling in the area. However, although the benefits of a single dwelling cannot be discounted, those benefits are small and are not sufficient to overcome the harm I have identified.

The application form indicates that the dwelling would be a self-build/custom built development and therefore exempt from any [name] (BNG) 1 Cheshire East Council – Cheshire East Local Plan Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030 July 2017. 2 Cheshire East Council – Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, [name] 2022. 3 Handforth Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2030 [name] 2018. requirements. Neither party make any reference to how the regulations for a self-build/custom built dwelling would be met. However, given that I have found harm on my main issue there is no need for me to pursue this matter further.

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. Consequently, for the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.