Appeal 6006909

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal would subdivide the plot of No.59, creating a tandem form of development. The proposed house would extend across the full width of the plot, with space immediately in front for parking two vehicles and a limited-depth garden to the rear. It would be accessed via an existing vehicular access to the side that serves Nos.61a and 61b, which are located in a backland position. While annotated on some of the plans as just 61a, this is a pair of semi-detached dwellings (Nos.61a and 61b).

These properties have been introduced more recently and are different in design to the terraced and semi-detached properties along [address] and the adjoining streets. Oriented with their front elevation facing towards the appeal site, they have dormers to the front serving the first floor and tall ground-floor windows. The space in front of the dwellings up to the boundary with the appeal site provides parking and turning facilities.

The proposed plot would effectively align with these properties, with the flank elevation sited along the edge of the access at a separation distance of approximately 12m. The outlook from No.61a is directed towards the proposed parking spaces in front of the house; therefore, while the proposed development would have a visual presence, it would not be significantly enclosing or intrusive. [name].61b, to the north, aligns with the siting of the proposed house. The upper window in the proposed flank elevation would serve a bathroom and be obscurely glazed, thereby preventing overlooking. Nonetheless, due to the proximity and the depth of the two-storey flank elevation, it would be an imposing addition to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of No.61b.

The separation distance from the existing house, No.59, would also be limited. Both the existing property, which has been extended with a two-storey projection to the rear, and the proposal would have first-floor windows on the facing elevations, allowing direct intervisibility. The proposed first-floor window in the new house would also enable close-range views over the garden and towards No.59a.

As part of an established residential area, there is a level of mutual overlooking. However, the proposed juxtaposition and separation would be substantially at odds with the existing pattern of development. The properties on [address] have long rear gardens, with distances of over 40m to the houses on [address]. While backland development has been introduced, e.g., Nos. 61a and b, it is orientated differently, with no windows in the flank elevations facing the neighbouring properties.

Due to the proximity, there would be a direct loss of privacy for the occupiers of Nos.59 and 59a. Correspondingly, an appropriate level of amenity would not be provided for the future occupiers of the proposed development, with views from No.59 into bedroom 2, which is only served by one window. There would also be an overbearing impact on No.61b to the detriment of the occupiers' living conditions.

As such, the development would be contrary to policy EN2 of the Sevenoaks District Council – Allocations and Development Management Plan (ADMP) which requires proposals to provide adequate residential amenities for existing and future occupiers and safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers, including ensuring development does not result in excessive overlooking or visual intrusion.

There are no trees on the appeal site; however, there are a number of trees within the neighbouring land positioned close to the rear boundary. These are not marked on the plans nor was any arboricultural information submitted as part of the planning application. The Council’s tree officer advises that excavation for the development would be within the RPAs of the adjacent semi-mature Sycamore tree and the Birch tree. The north-facing, rear elevation of the proposed house, which includes windows serving the main habitable rooms, would be positioned a limited distance (approximately 3m) from the rear boundary.

The appellant suggests that tree protection details could be secured by condition. However, given the proximity of the proposed building, and the restricted garden space, along with the lack of a tree survey and any details of potential mitigation measures, I am unable to conclude that the trees would be safeguarded during construction and in the long term. Therefore, the proposal fails to accord with Policy EN1 of the ADMP, which seeks high-quality design and, amongst other things, requires proposals to respect natural features, including trees, and to be designed to avoid or mitigate any potential harm to green infrastructure.

In addition to the main issues identified above, I acknowledge the other concerns raised by interested parties, including the Parish Council. These include the effects on traffic movements, parking, and turning; the impact on sewage; and matters relating to the construction process. However, as the appeal is to be dismissed on other grounds, it is not necessary for me to consider these matters further.

The appellant has suggested a number of conditions in relation to obscure glazing, restrictions on additional windows and boundary treatments. While providing additional controls, they would not mitigate the harm identified.

I have found harm to the amenities of the future occupiers and those of the neighbouring properties. There is also insufficient information to ensure the protection of the existing trees in close proximity to the proposed built form. The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan, and there are no other considerations before me that indicate the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.