Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 19 January 2009
by Stuart M Reid
D Arch (Hons) RIBA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government
The Planning Inspectorate
4/11 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
0117 372 6372
email:enquiries@pins.gsi.g
ov.uk
Decision date:
9 March 2009
Appeal A: APP/Y3615/C/08/2080668
Wentworth, Merrow Street, Guildford, Surrey GU4 7AP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
The appeal is made by Mrs Maureen Newson against an enforcement notice issued by
Guildford Borough Council.
The Council's reference is EN/08/00327.
The notice was issued on 20 June 2008.
The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission
operational development comprising the construction of two semi detached dwellings.
The requirements of the notice are to either demolish the dwellings in their entirety or
alter them to comply in all respects with the dwellings approved by the Council under
reference 04/P/02410. Remove all materials resulting from the demolition or surplus
materials if altered from the land.
The period for compliance with the requirements is six months.
The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a) and (f) of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the development is exempt
from the payment of fees, the application for planning permission deemed to have been
made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended also falls to be considered.
Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is
quashed, and planning permission is granted in the terms set out below in
the Formal decision.
Appeal B: APP/Y3615/A/08/2080031
Wentworth, Merrow Street, Guildford, Surrey GU4 7AP
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mrs Maureen Newson against the decision of Guildford Borough
Council.
The application Ref 08/P/00598, dated 25 March 2008, was refused by notice dated
21 May 2008.
The development is the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings (amendment to
planning permission 04/P/02410 dated 16.03.05).
Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is
granted subject to conditions set out below in the Formal Decision.
The section 174 appeal on ground (a), the deemed planning application,
and the section 78 appeal.
1. Ground (a) is that, in respect of any breach of planning control which may be
constituted by the matters stated in the notice, planning permission ought to
be granted. This ground is concerned with the planning merits of the case, and
695
Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/C/08/2080668, APP/Y3615/A/08/2080031
it raises the same issues as the deemed application for planning permission,
which is inherent in every enforcement notice appeal. The linked section 78
appeal also raises the same issues, and I shall therefore deal with them
together.
Main issues
2. From my inspection of the site and its surroundings, and from the written
representations made, I consider that the main issues in these appeals are the
effect that the development has on:
•
the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area;
•
the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at Coxhall with particular
regard to overlooking and visual impact; and
•
highway safety and the free flow of traffic with particular regard to the
provision of onsite car parking.
Reasons
3. On 16 March 2005 planning permission Ref 04/P/02410 was granted on the
appeal site for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of
2 houses. The Council allege that they were not built in accordance with the
drawings, and in consequence they have issued the enforcement notice which
is the subject of the section 174 appeal.
4. Following the refusal of planning permission for the same development and the
making of the section 78 appeal, the appellant has entered into a section 106
planning obligation in the form of an agreement relating to the Council’s
concerns about the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. A copy is at
the appellant’s agent’s Appendix 12 to his Statement. In consequence this is
no longer a concern of the Council, and I agree with their view.
5. Planning policies relevant to these appeals are contained in The Guildford
Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by the Communities and Local Government
Direction on 24/09/2007). These policies are Policy H4, Housing in Urban
Areas; Policy G1, General Standards of Development, in particular Policy G1(1)
and Policy G1(3); and Policy G5, Design Code. In addition the Residential
Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance of July 2004, and the Vehicle
Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance of September 2006, are
relevant. In determining these appeals I shall also take into account
Government advice that is contained in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering
Sustainable Development (PPS1) and Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing
(PPS3).
Character and appearance
6. The appeal site is in a mainly residential road of detached and semi-detached
houses and cottages of varied styles and ages. It has a semi-rural character,
particularly as opposite the site is a large school playing field with a mature
hedge along the roadside. The sole footpath is on the east side, which is the
side that the site is on. Adjoining the appeal site to the north is a dwelling
called Coxhall, a 2-storey cottage style property, which is aligned lengthways
on to the road, in contrast to the other nearby dwellings. It is set well back in
2
Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/C/08/2080668, APP/Y3615/A/08/2080031
its plot, about 27m from its road frontage. It is a single aspect dwelling with
the windows in all of its main rooms facing south towards the appeal site. On
the other side of the site is Spring Cottages, a pair of 2-storey semi-detached
dwellings.
7. The appeal site is within the urban area of Guildford where the principle of
residential development is acceptable under Policy H4. Furthermore, the
principle of permitting a pair of semi-detached dwellings on the appeal site has
been accepted in the grant of planning permission by the Council,
Ref 04/P/02410, dated 16 March 2005.
The roof height
8. The Council have approved the dwellings with a ridge height at 8.5m. This was
to achieve a staggered roof height dropping down from Spring Cottages, which
has a ridge height of 9.1m, partly so that they had less impact on the character
of the area.
9. The ridge height of the appeal building is about 0.53m lower than the main
ridge of Spring Cottages. The staggered roof line that the Council sought when
they granted permission is therefore retained. There is an imperceptible
difference in the street scene of the increased ridge height of about 600mm
compared with the permitted scheme. Furthermore, because the roof line
satisfactorily steps down with the road, maintaining local distinctiveness and
character, the building is not seen as an overdevelopment, nor as out of
keeping in the street scene. It is not harmful, even though it is different to
that which was previously permitted. It respects its context and thus accords
with Policy G5.
The chimneys
10. There is a modest increase in width from 13.1m for the permitted scheme to
15m, but the 2 chimneys are 2 attractive features. Other dwellings in the area,
as I saw at my visit, also have chimneys, which are therefore characteristic of
the locality. They are very small intrusions into the street scene, and do not
cause any harm, as they are in line with national and local policies which seek
good design which reflects local distinctiveness.
11. There is adequate space around the property, and up to its side boundaries,
and only a minimal intrusion by the chimneys into the spaces at the side for a
very short distance whilst walking past the street elevation. They are, of
course, not very deep compared with the overall depth of the building, and are
set towards the back of the property. Moreover, I consider that they are
pleasing features on the dwellings, with attractive and appropriate detailing, in
character with the area. They conform to Local Plan Policy G5.
The rear extensions
12. These were permitted as brick and glass conservatories with a pitched tiled
roof. They have been increased in depth from 12.6m to 15m, but still as brick
and glass extensions with a pitched tiled roof. There is far less glazing
proportionately than with the permitted conservatories. They are seen against
the mainly rear brick elevations, and they only cover a part of the rear
elevation.
3
Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/C/08/2080668, APP/Y3615/A/08/2080031
13. The fact that the balance of brick to glass has changed is of no consequence,
nor is the fact that they are larger. They are still in scale with the building, and
as modest single storey extensions with relatively shallow pitched roofs they
are not intrusive or overbearing. The extensions are clearly acceptable in
terms of good design, and also provide pleasant kitchen accommodation. They
do not harm the good-sized gardens at the rear, and thus are not an
overdevelopment of the site. They conform to Local Plan Policy G5.
Living conditions
14. The Council’s approved ridge height of 8.5m was partly to protect the
neighbours’ living conditions at Coxhall, and they also accepted that there
would be windows to the rear of the property at first floor level. The very
modest increase in ridge height, rather further away from Coxhall than the
nearest rear corner, would have an imperceptible effect on the occupiers of
Coxhall, and certainly not an effect which would be harmful in terms of being
overbearing.
15. The first and second floor windows and rooflights are to bedrooms, and the
rooflights themselves are set high above floor level, so that it is not normally
possible to look out of them. I therefore consider that they are not harmful in
terms of overlooking. I appreciate that this is a different outlook to that which
the occupiers of Coxhall had when the appeal site had a bungalow on it, and
very marginally different to the scheme which the Council permitted. However,
the development is in line with Government policy seeking the more efficient
use of previously developed land with schemes that respond to their local
context. I am satisfied that this development responds to its local context
without causing harm.
16. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken account of my colleague’s appeal
decision for the construction of a 2-storey building on the appeal site, with
accommodation in the roof space, to provide 4 flats. He rejected the first and
second floor windows because of the unacceptable overlooking of the occupiers
of Coxhall. However, although I have very little information about the scheme
before him, the Council’s evidence is that the proposal had living
accommodation at first and second floor level. That is very different to the
development before me, as it seems that overlooking from living areas would
have been possible at both first and second floor levels. The development
before me would deal satisfactorily with those concerns, and for these reasons
would not be unneighbourly. The development thus accords with Local Plan
Policy G1(3).
Parking provision
17. The Council granted permission with one space for each dwelling, albeit for a
3 bedroom as opposed to a 4 bedroom house. This maintained the semi-rural
character of the area, as it enabled a front garden area to be provided. The
Council’s policy has changed since the grant of permission. Their standards are
now defined as a maximum residential standard for 15 dwellings or more, and
as an advisory standard below that threshold. For the same reason as for the
Council’s grant of permission, I see no need to increase the present provision,
which would maintain the character of the area.
4
Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/C/08/2080668, APP/Y3615/A/08/2080031
18. By providing space for a front garden the development is more respectful of
local distinctiveness. It is important to maintain the semi-rural character and
to have a sensible balance between the front garden area and parking space.
The development is in a very sustainable location, close to a range of local
shops and services, a primary school, a doctor’s surgery, and a regular bus
service along Epsom Road. The development conforms to Local Plan Policy
G1(1) and the Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Conditions
19. The Council have recommended that I impose the conditions set out in the
Officer’s Report to the Planning Committee. However, a number of the
recommended conditions relate to the development as though it were an
unbuilt proposal, whereas I am dealing with, for both appeals, a development
which is almost complete. The development has been built broadly in
accordance with planning permission Ref 04/P/02410, dated 16 March 2005.
20. There is clearly no need to impose a condition to require the development to be
begun before the expiration of three years, because it already has begun. The
Council have raised no concerns about the materials used in the development,
or the boundary treatment, and I see no need to control them. Space has
been laid out for parking and access provided, and I see no need to control
them further. These matters are, in any case, dealt with by the existing
permission.
21. It does however seem to me to be right, for the avoidance of doubt, to impose
conditions withdrawing Permitted Development rights, to safeguard the
character of the development and the living conditions of nearby occupiers.
For the same reason I shall impose a condition requiring obscured glazing in
the bathroom windows. As there is work still to be done to complete the
development I shall impose a condition to control working hours, to protect
neighbours from noise and disturbance outside normal working hours. Because
the Council are content with the section 106 agreement relating to the Thames
Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, there is no need to impose a condition in
connection with it.
22. The other conditions recommended by the Council are unrelated to the very
limited matters before me, and I consider that it would be unreasonable to
impose them when they were not imposed on the original permission. These
include energy use including renewable energy, details of the storage facility
for bins and recycling, the requirement retrospectively to achieve Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes, and a scheme of landscaping for the front of the
site.
23. The Council also seek to ensure that the new rooflights are retained at 1.77m
above the finished floor level. It was agreed at the site visit they are in fact
higher than that, and to impose that condition would require them to be
lowered, which would not be appropriate. I note that this was due to an error
on the application drawing. I am withdrawing Permitted Development rights
for rooflights, so any new rooflights would need express planning permission.
24. Finally, the application drawing no. 08106.02.01A shows 2 further rooflights on
the 2 short elevations. It was agreed at the site visit they had not been built
and were not needed. I shall not therefore grant planning permission for them.
5
Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/C/08/2080668, APP/Y3615/A/08/2080031
Conclusions
25. For the reasons given above I conclude that the section 174 appeal should
succeed on ground (a) and planning permission will be granted. In the light of
my conclusions on the planning merits I have no need to deal with the appeal
on ground (f). Similarly, I conclude that the section 78 appeal should be
allowed.
Formal decisions
Appeal A: APP/Y3615/C/08/2080668
26. I allow the appeal, and direct that the enforcement notice be quashed. I grant
planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under
section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended for the development already
carried out, namely the erection of two semi-detached dwellings on land at
Wentworth, Merrow Street, Guildford, Surrey GU4 7AP as referred to in the
notice.
Appeal B: APP/Y3615/A/08/2080031
27. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for the erection of a pair of
semi-detached dwellings (amendment to planning permission 04/P/02410
dated 16.03.05) at Wentworth, Merrow Street, Guildford, Surrey GU4 7AP in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 08/P/00598, dated 25 March
2008, and the plan submitted with it, drawing no. 08106.02.01A, subject to the
following conditions:
1)
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no building,
extensions, or alterations permitted by Classes A, B, C, D, E and F of
Part 1 of the Second Schedule shall be erected or carried out other than
those expressly authorised by this permission.
2)
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows,
dormer windows, or rooflights, or similar openings, shall be constructed
at first floor level or above other than those expressly authorised by this
permission.
3)
The bathroom windows in the side elevations of the development shall be
fitted with obscure glazing and retained thereafter in that condition.
4)
Notwithstanding the 2 rooflights shown on the South East Elevation and
the North West Elevation on the application drawing, this permission does
not authorise their construction.
5)
Demolition or construction works shall not take place outside 0800 hours
to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and outside 0800 hours to 1330 hours
on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays.
Stuart M Reid
INSPECTOR
6