Appeal 6006191

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the banner heading reflects the wording agreed between the parties after the planning application was submitted.

The application was submitted in outline, with all matters reserved. I have therefore treated the details shown on the submitted site plan, floor plans, and elevations as indicative only.

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 neighbouring properties, with particular regard to privacy, outlook and noise;  the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC); and  whether the proposal would accord with the statutory provisions for biodiversity net gain (BNG).

The appeal site lies between [address] and [address], which have distinctly different characters, reflective of the variety in the design of houses in the area overall. The dwellings on this northern edge of [address] comprise mainly detached and semi-detached dwellings, that are set back from the highway behind driveways. The properties here have distinctively deep plots, providing generously sized rear gardens. In contrast, [address] and the adjacent [address] are made up of long terraces of more modestly sized dwellings with smaller gardens, and that have consistency in their appearance.

There is, however, also some commonality between the two streets in that they are characterised by linear rows of dwellings that present to the public realm as unified groups. This pattern of development gives each street a cohesive identity.

The layout, design, and orientation of the building are not matters for which approval is sought at this outline stage. However, whilst the dwelling could address [address] and could have similar plot coverage to the [address] dwellings, it would be anomalous here as the only detached dwelling on a street characterised by terraced properties. Therefore, even if the dwelling had a similar external appearance to the [address] properties, it would fail to integrate sympathetically with the established pattern of development on the street.

The dwelling would occupy a plot that would be smaller and more constrained than the generously sized plots that are distinctive to the [address] dwellings; and it would interrupt the consistency that currently exists in the size and shape of the rear gardens. Consequently, the proposal would detract from the commonality in the plot layouts that is characteristic to this part of [address], even if the site were landscaped in a similar way. It follows that, even if the proposed building was designed to reflect the [address] dwellings, it would be an incongruent feature that would lack integration with the surrounding development.

There could potentially be some visual enhancement to the site through the replacement of the existing garage. However, I am not persuaded that the proposal is necessary to improve the appearance and condition of the site or the garage and, therefore, this matter is not determinative to my conclusions.

Overall, I find that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which expects development to be sympathetic to local character. The proposal would also be contrary to Policies CS11 and CS12 of the [name] 2006-2031 (Adopted 25 September 2013) (CS) and [name] 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 [name] (Adopted 21 April 2004) insofar as they expect development to respect and enhance the character of the area and adjoining properties, including in terms of layout, scale, and site coverage.

The dwelling would inevitably be close to nearby properties, including those at [address], [site address] , and [address]. However, the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of these and other dwellings would be dependent on detailed design matters such as the height, width, depth, and orientation of the proposed dwelling, as well as its window positions and glazing details. Because the application is submitted in outline form, and notwithstanding the submitted plans, these details do not form part of the proposal that is before me. However, given that there are potentially many ways in which the detailed design could evolve, I see no reason to conclude that the dwelling would be overbearing or that it would lead to unacceptable overlooking.

Whilst the addition of new residents would have the potential to increase noise through human activity and comings and goings, this would not be harmful in the context of this established residential area where it is common to overhear domestic noise arising from nearby residences. Moreover, any increase in noise would be limited given that the proposal relates to a single dwelling.

No harm has been identified by the Council with regard to other potential effects on existing living conditions, including changes in daylight and sunlight provision and shadowing. Based on the evidence before me, and the outline nature of the application, I see no reason to find harm in these respects.

Overall, I am satisfied that a dwelling could feasibly be delivered on this site without causing harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring residents, with particular regard to privacy, outlook, and noise. Thus, the proposal would accord with the Framework insofar as it expects development to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing users. There would also be no conflict with Policy CS12 of the CS, which expects proposal to avoid visual intrusion, loss of privacy, and disturbance to surrounding properties.

The site lies within the zone of influence of the [name], which is a European site as defined by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations). The Habitats Regulations require that, before deciding to give permission for a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, an appropriate assessment must be made of the implications of the plan or project on its conservation objectives.

The SAC is designated for the purpose of protecting its qualifying features, which include beech forests on neutral to rich soils; dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone; and [name]. The conservation objectives are to ensure the integrity of the habitats site is maintained and restored. The integrity of the SAC is under threat from the damage, contamination, fire, and other impacts that arise through the recreational use of the SAC. The increased population associated with new housing would be likely to increase the number of visitors to the SAC and, therefore, would exacerbate the harm caused through recreational activity.

The proposal would provide a new dwelling and thus it would lead to an uplift in the number of residents in the area who would be likely to visit the SAC as a recreational resource. Consequently, and when combined with other plans and projects in the area, the development would have a likely significant effect on the integrity of the SAC due to increased disturbance through recreational activity.

The Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation: [name] for [name] and Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (the [name]) sets out a strategic approach to mitigating the adverse effects on the SAC. The approach includes the provision of Suitable Alternative Green Space (SANG) to divert pressure away from the SAC, and [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) measures to reduce the effects of recreation through communication and engagement activities. The Mitigation Strategy is funded through proportionate financial contributions towards SAMM and SANG from qualifying development such as the appeal scheme.

The appellant recognises that mitigation would be required in respect of the SAC due to the uplift in dwellings that would arise from the scheme; and has stated a willingness to provide a unilateral undertaking to secure the necessary contributions towards the strategic mitigation measures. However, there is no such planning obligation before me. Therefore, there is no effective mechanism through which the financial contribution towards the SANG and SAMM could be secured. Furthermore, there is no evidence of overriding public interest that would indicate the appeal development should be permitted, or that there would be compensatory measures to offset the harm that would be caused.

Consequently, and having regard to my duties under the Habitats Regulations, the proposal would fail to preserve the integrity of the SAC and there would be conflict with Policy CS26 of the CS which seeks to protect designated sites.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) as amended (the Act) introduced a statutory framework for BNG. Under the statutory framework, subject to some exemptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met.

The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (as amended) (DMPO) sets out the minimum information requirements that should accompany applications for proposals that would be subject to the BGC. The minimum information requirements were not provided in this case because the proposal is advanced as one that would be exempt from the BGC on the basis that it would be a self-build dwelling.

It is clearly the appellant’s intention to design and build a dwelling for self-occupation. If built and occupied on this basis, I have no reason to find that the house would not fall within the definition of a self-build home as set out in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (SBCH). However, in order for there to be certainty that the BNG exemption would apply, there must be an effective mechanism through which the dwelling could be secured for SBCH and to prevent it being built and sold as a market dwelling.

The appellant has suggested that a condition could secure the dwelling for SBCH. However, I have concerns that a condition would not be effective in this instance. This is because the planning permission would relate to the land, but the requirements for SBCH would relate to the individual(s) who would design and occupy the dwelling and, as such, the condition would lack enforceability. Moreover, if the property was sold and occupied by a third party, I am not convinced it would be practicable or reasonable to then require the person who had designed the home to reside in it. Therefore, and in the absence of any suggested condition wording to convince me otherwise, I find that a condition to secure the dwelling as SBCH would fail the tests for conditions set out in the Framework.

In the absence of an effective mechanism to secure the proposal as SBCH, the development would not be exempt from the BGC and, therefore, the minimum information requirements set out in the DMPO would apply. Without this information, the proposal would fail to comply with the statutory provisions for BNG.

The proposal would conflict with the aforementioned development plan policies, which brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. It would also fail to comply with the statutory provisions for BNG. Developments that conflict with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council concedes that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. [name] do not have definitive evidence as to the size of the housing shortfall, the appellant states the current supply is 1.03 years and this has not been disputed by the Council. [name] were to accept that this is the current supply, it would represent a very significant shortfall.

The delivery of an additional home in a well-established residential area with good access to services and facilities is a benefit of the scheme, particularly given there is a need for additional housing in the area; and there would be other social and economic benefits associated with the construction phase. These benefits carry positive weight, although the weight is limited by the small contribution that would be made by this single dwelling proposal.

At this outline stage, there is no reason to find that the dwelling would not provide a good standard of accommodation for its future occupier(s) and no concerns have been raised in respect of highway safety. The absence of harm weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

Due to the housing land supply position, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. However, the harm that would be caused to the SAC provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed under the provisions of paragraph 11 d) i of the Framework and Footnote 7. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The material considerations in this case do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.