Disappointed to see that the Planning Inspectorate overturned the ruling of the Planning Committee, and granted planning permission for a new dwelling on Flamville Road in Burbage - despite the protests of the Parish & Borough Councils, and the local residents.
Below is the official ruling on this:
Main Issues
3. I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and
appearance of the streetscene and on the living conditions of surrounding residents
by reason of overlooking of 12 Flamville Road.
Reasons
4. The site, which has a front and side to Flamville Road, forms part of the rear
garden of 60 Lychgate Lane, one of a pair of semi-detached properties. Flamville
Road is a cul-de-sac that runs along the side of No 60 and then has two branches;
Appeal Decision APP/K2420/A/09/21082452the western branch has semi-detached houses to both sides and the eastern
branch, which the site fronts, has semi-detached houses on its southern side only.
The semi-detached houses are of modest scale with narrow separation between
them. The exception is a new terrace of three properties with a central gable
feature opposite the main Flamville Road access. There are no footpaths or verges
to the two arms of Flamville Road, although the main access is wider, with a clear
verge on the western side and a hedge covered verge to the east.
5. The proposal is for a detached two-storey house with a garage and two parking
spaces facing the eastern arm of the road and a front elevation facing the main
Flamville Road access. It would adjoin a garage in the rear of No 62. The Council
do not object to the principle of residential development or to the proposed design,
which would reflect the design of surrounding properties. The Burbage Design
Statement 2006 indicated that Lychgate Lane / Flamville Road area has a mix of
housing from Victorian cottages to a few modern detached houses.
6. Whilst the house is detached, I do not consider that this would conflict with the
regular pattern and spacing of semi-detached properties, as there are no similar
properties on the northern side of the eastern leg of Flamville Road. The opposite
side of Lychgate Lane has a variety of detached and semi-detached houses and
occasional bungalows, so that variety within the area is apparent. In addition, the
new development of three terraced houses already interrupts the flow and rhythm
of the semi-detached houses on the southern side of Flamville Road. The footprint
of the proposed house, although different from the nearby semi-detached houses,
would reflect that of the new development opposite and would not introduce a
conflicting note.
7. The house has been designed to front both frontages of Flamville Road. Whilst
different to the semi-detached houses in the area, this would produce an active
frontage to both elements of Flamville Road and would provide an enhanced
appearance and aid integration of the new dwelling into the area.
8. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character
and appearance of the streetscene. It would comply with saved Policy BE1 of the
Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001 [LP] that aims to ensure a high standard of
design to secure attractive development that will safeguard and enhance the
existing environment.
9. The property would have an elevation facing the semi-detached houses on the
southern side of Flamville Road. There would be a ground floor lounge window and
two first floor bedroom windows facing No 12, which is directly opposite the site.
There would be some 17 metres between facing windows across Flamville Road.
The Council in support has referred to Supplementary Planning Guidance: New
Residential Development [SPG], revised in 1997, although this was not referred to
in the decision notice. This guidance has been adopted following public
consultation and I attribute moderate weight to it although it was produced in
advance of Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing.
10. SPG indicates that the Council will negotiate to try to achieve a minimum
separation distance of 25 metres between facing habitable room windows. The
existing properties across the western arm of Flamville Road have a separation
distance of around 15 metres. Whilst less than the distance recommended in SPG,
bearing in mind that the ground floor windows face a highway with its attended
lowering of privacy, I do not consider that the interaction between bedroom
Appeal Decision APP/K2420/A/09/21082453 windows at a distance of 17 metres would have an adverse impact on the living
conditions of residents.
11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living
conditions of the residents of No 12 by reason of overlooking. The proposals would
comply with saved LP Policy BE1, which aims to ensure that there should not be an
adverse affect on the occupiers of neighbouring property.
12. The residents of No 62 also have concerns in respect of living conditions. The
properties would be some 25 metres apart and the main two-storey element of the
proposed house would lie next to No 62’s garage, with a single storey element
projecting along the boundary. I consider that the distance and the relationships
of the proposed house to the house and garden at No 62 would not have an
unacceptable impact on living conditions through loss of light, overlooking or loss
of outlook.
13. Concern has also been expressed in relation to the access and parking situation in
the area, as many properties do not have or use off-street parking. The access
exists and, whilst close to a corner, is on a minor cul-de-sac where traffic speeds
are likely to be low. The proposal would have three off-road parking spaces, which
the Council consider adequate for the size of dwelling proposed. A new access and
of-street parking have been provided off Lychgate Lane for No 60, so I do not
consider that the proposal need give rise to any significant amount of on-street
parking.
14. In respect of flooding, it is indicated that this is an existing problem of run-off from
the adjacent highway. Soakaways are proposed for the house that would need to
meet regulatory standards and I do not consider that the proposal would contribute
further run-off that would have an impact on the existing problem.
15. For the reasons given, and taking all other matters into account, I conclude that
the appeal should be allowed.
16. I have considered the conditions submitted by the Council having regard to the
advice in Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. I have
adjusted their wording where necessary in the interests of clarity. I agree that a
condition relating to materials is necessary to ensure that the appearance
contributes to the character of the area.
Andrew Jeyes
INSPECTOR