1

Statement of Case

Refusal of Application No. 2014/23847

Land at 12 CRANLEIGH CLOSE

Contents page 1

1. Introduction 2

2. Methodology

3. Review & commentary

3.1 review & assessment of harm to character and streetscene 4

3.2 review & assessment of neighbouring outlook and amenity 6

3.3 review against LPCS QE6 7

3.4 review against LPCS QE7/ SPD/ Best practice guides 8

3.5 review against NPPF 10

3.6 relevance of the earlier appeal 10

3.7 Remaining objector concerns 12

4. Summary and Conclusions 13

5. Appendix

5.1 Reason for refusal

5.2 Officers Report

5.3 LVIA

5.3.1 Openness plan 1 – Diagram submitted with application

5.3.2 Openness plan 2 – Change of view before and after

5.3.3 Openness plan 3 – Increase in floor areas with obstructed views

5.3.4 Openness Plan 4 – Neighbouring house layouts

5.3.5 Change in openness summary table

5.4 Policy QE6 & Commentary

5.5 Cheshire Woodlands and Arboricultural consultation reports

5.6 Policy QE7 & SPD Design and Construction & Commentary

5.7 Building for Life 12 assessment and guide

5.8 Table of garden sizes

5.9 Summary Table – Change in Openness

5.10 ‘Design Wayfinder’ guidance

5.11 Policy SN1

5.12 Cabe Director ‘Design Essay’

5.13 LVIA Guidance and Background

5.14 NPPF Review and Commentary

5.15 Grain and massing comparison table

2

1. Introduction

1.1 This document is in support of the appeal against the refusal of Planning Application

No. 2014/23847 by Warrington Borough Council for the application to build a single

detached house on land adjacent to 12 Cranleigh Close, Stockton Heath. Warrington.

Refer to appendix 5.1 for the reason for refusal

1.2 Although the refusal refers to the Emerging LPCS the Warrington Local Plan Core

Strategy was adopted on 21st July 2014 shortly after the refusal. The LPCS has now

superseded the Unitary Development Plan and saved policies. The application has

not been refused by reference to extant saved planning policies but by reference to

policy proposals which were not at the time adopted. The refusal should have been

judged against breach of extant policy and where appropriate suitable weight of

emerging policy should have informed that decision.

1.3 The NPPF require that planning decisions are clear, transparent, measured and

policy led. Decisions are always a matter of judgement but the decision-taker is

required to demonstrate that they have considered all relevant matters including best

practice guidance. Generally greater weight is attached when supported by evidence

rather than solely by assertion.

1.4 The reason for refusal is not clear or supported by evidence. Indeed the policies

quoted can equally be interpreted to be supportive of the application. The officer’s

report (see appendix 5.1 for report extracts) lends little clarity and includes the

previous appeal decision in the reasoning. There seems to have been little or no

analysis which would support the use of the term serious harm except to satisfy a

need to be serious in order to be material.

1.5 It is therefore necessary to analyse the wording of the refusal, the officer report, the

previous appeal and the policy background. Use of established assessment methods

will determine relevance and importance to the primary question which is whether or

not the proposed development is in breach of the Development Plan and does the

proposal lead to an unacceptable loss of openness.

3

2.Methodology

Points raised in the reason for refusal will be explored : They are:

A) loss of open ness and aspect resulting in serious harm to the overall character

and appearance of the streetscene

B) The proposal would not respect the living conditions of existing neighbouring

residential occupiers in relation to loss of outlook and would have a detrimental

impact on residential amenity

C) The proposal would not accord with policy QE6 of the emerging Local Plan Core

Strategy

(The policy covering ‘Amenity’)

D) The proposal would not accord with policy QE 7 of the emerging Local Plan Core

Strategy

(The policy covering ‘Design’)

E) The proposal would not accord with the NPPF (with particular reference to

Paragraph 9 - Sustainability)

F) The proposal would not accord with WBC planning departments SPD –

Construction and design

2.1 Points 2A & 2B

Will be reviewed against the acknowledged standard assessment for gauging

seriousness of the impact of changes in relation to landscape character and visual

amenity, by reference to the Guide to Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd

edition, Published jointly by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment in May 2013.

This level of review is not usually required for a development of this scale.

Professional opinion and experience can often be an appropriate method of review

but it should be expected that this route is a shortcut to the same well-reasoned

answer. ‘Professional opinion’ should consider the same elements, although less

formally, attach appropriate weight to each and arrive at largely the same conclusion

as the formal appraisal.

2.2 Point 2C & 2D

Will be reviewed using Building for Life 12, published by CABE and the standard

referenced in the LPCS (Policy QE7) to assess design quality related to matters of

amenity. They will be further compared with CABE guidance in relation to the

judgement of the quality of design and the urban environment.

2.3 Points 2E & 2F

Will be compared against the published documents. The NPPF sets out the

background for planning policy and the SDP - Design and Construction defines

Warrington’s interpretation of good design.

2.4 The relevance of the earlier 1990 appeal decision will be reviewed together with

current and emerging government policy on housing and finally remaining concerns

raised by objectors.

4

3. Review of refusal points & Commentary

3.1 (2A) Loss of openness and aspect, resulting in serious harm to the

overall character and appearance of the streetscene. 3.11 To review this it is first necessary to understand what it might mean. 3.12 Cranleigh Close is not a typical cul de sac with houses circling a turning head. The south and west aspect of the turning head are undeveloped. Loss of openness and aspect must therefore relate to the partial loss of this feature. Loss of openness in itself is not grounds for refusal as with every development openness is replaced by building. Loss of aspect and character must be the concern and to determine if there is a loss we must assess who is losing, what is being lost and the scale and impact of that loss. This is the approach adopted in the accompanying LVIA. (See guidance -appendix 5.13) 3.13 The NPPF has a presumption in favour of development except where material

considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:

Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in

the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be

restricted.

3.14 According to Planning Portal guidance ‘Material considerations’ can include

(but are not limited to)

Overlooking/loss of privacy

Loss of light or overshadowing

Parking

Highway safety

Traffic

Noise

Effect on listed building and conservation area

Layout and density of building

Design, appearance and materials

Government policy

Disabled persons' access

Proposals in the Development Plan

Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)

5

Nature conservation

3.15 However this guidance is specific that issues such as loss of view, or negative effect on the value of properties are not material planning considerations.

3.16 Therefore it is clear that the issue should not be one of loss of an individual’s

view and that to be material the loss must be demonstrated to be

significant.

3.17 Review of the officer report does not suggest that a transparent assessment

of the quality and character of the streetscene has been undertaken prior to

concluding serious harm will be caused, nor is serious harm defined. At one

end of the scale Serious Harm might be associated with for example a

windfarm occupying a prominent position in an area of deemed high quality

views. Clearly this is not the situation and therefore there must be a ‘scale of

harm’ which might better be employed to conclude the effect of the

development.

3.18 The accompanying Landscape and visual impact assessment has therefore

been undertaken following recognised methodology to demonstrate answers

to the questions: who is losing; what is being lost and is the scale and impact

of that loss significant?

3.19 Study of the LVIA supporting this appeal identifies the receptors of loss, the

scale of that loss and demonstrates that the loss to landscape and visual

amenity is determined to be Minor.

3.20 This first refusal point is also linked to the phrase: ‘serious harm to the overall character and appearance of the

streetscene.’ 3.21 In so far as this is a concern about loss of openness this aspect is covered by

the LVIA. Other aspects which might relate to the character of the street from a design perspective are covered separately below.

3.22 (2B)The proposal would not respect the living conditions of existing

neighbouring residential occupiers in relation to loss of outlook and would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

3.23 What might this mean?

It would appear to clearly link the reason for refusal with a loss of outlook for neighbours and it brings the topic of residential amenity into the argument for refusal.

3.24 NPPF guidance is clear that loss of view is not a material planning consideration but, the refusal, by limiting this specifically to neighbours loss (as opposed to a wider community) links it to perceived loss of neighbours view. The LVIA referred to above covers this aspect and shows a difference between the perceived and actual loss.

6

3.2 It refers to living conditions and residential amenity.

3.21 Living conditions commonly would refer to room sizes, numbers of bedrooms compared to occupiers, availability of suitable kitchen and bathroom facilities, space in the garden etc. If view can be considered as a living condition, and there must be serious doubt about this, then it is 1 of many aspects and appropriate weight should be given to its potential to contribute to living condition. As a partial loss of view it should carry even less weight, It can certainly not be considered significant and should not have been included as part of the reason for refusal. 3.22 Residential amenity would commonly refer to many factors including for example factors such a noise, air pollution, proximity to local shops, schools, churches, services, buses, access to countryside etc. All contribute to the level of Residential Amenity. A single factor could be so severe that it has a serious detrimental impact. Noise would be an example of this. Visual outlook (View) is one factor in the assessment of amenity but appropriate weight should be given to all aspects of amenity when defining the quantity of reduction in residential. The approach taken by inspectors confirms that in planning no individual has a right to a particular view but that there may be a point when, by virtue of the proximity, size and scale of a development, a residential property would be rendered so unattractive a place to live that planning permission should be refused. The question of when a property becomes an unattractive place to live relates to the whole property not just to the occupiers view. It is important to note that a significant adverse change to an outlook from a property does not in itself result in material harm to living conditions - there needs to be a degree of harm demonstrated over and above this to warrant a refusal in the public interest. 3.23 The matter of consideration of potential visual effects on living conditions has been examined at several public inquiries. The inspector for the Sixpenny Wood development (of significantly greater scale) states that: ’there is no right to view per se, and any assessment of visual intrusion leading to a finding of material harm must therefore include extra factors such as undue obtrusiveness, or an overbearing impact leading to a diminution of conditions at the relevant property to an unacceptable degree’. The inspector at the Burnthouse Farm appeal posed the question ‘would the proposal affect the outlook of these residents to such an extent, ie. to become so unpleasant, overwhelming and oppressive that this would become an unattractive place to live’. 3.24 The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment suggest that the following may help inform assessment :

The scale of change of view, including composition in the view, and

proportion of the view affected.

The degree of contrast or integration of any new features into the view

The angle of view in relation to the main activities of the receptor.

The relative size and proximity of new features in the view

7

3.25 This appeal is therefore accompanied by a Landscape character and visual impact assessment (see appendix 5.3) which is further supported by ‘Openness drawings’ Nos. 1-4 and summary Table (below) which explore IEMA guidance topics.

3.26 Far from being unduly obtrusive, unpleasant or overwhelmingly oppressive

the proposal can be judged through the accompanying LVIA to have only minor visual impact at worst.

3.3 (2C) The proposal would not accord with policy QE6 of the emerging

Local Plan Core Strategy. 3.31 This is a repeat of the reference to amenity but reference to policy helps

define how it should be interpreted. (See appendix 5.4- Policy QE6) 3.32 The policy considers that a wide spectrum of factors make up residential

amenity. Many are not applicable to this proposal, however, it does recognise that for a housing development factors such as overlooking distances/ loss of privacy, loss of sunlight, daylight, overshadowing, noise and disturbance are material considerations.

It refers to highway issues and car parking, agreed as acceptable by the councils own highway consultee.

3.33 It references the Supplementary Planning Document to define the

requirements for Q6. The proposed development meets and exceeds all these standards and this will be reviewed below in section 3.6.

Review of the expressed objectives behind the policy (see appendix 5.4) show that BE1 is not applicable. BE2 can be considered applicable but as a design related matter will be returned to below. BE3 is applicable and the application responds to this with a ‘fabric first’ and with a built-in adaptability

8

approach to sustainability. BE4 is applicable but the proposal has no detrimental effect on landscape. (refer to the council arboricultural consultant’s report and Cheshire Woodlands report included with the application- appendix 5.5)

3.34 From this review it is concluded that the proposal fully meets the

requirements of policy QE6 and the objectives behind it.

3.4 (2D) The proposal would not accord with policy QE7 of the emerging

Local Plan Core Strategy.

(2F) The proposal would not accord with SPD Design and construction

3.41 This policy covers design quality and is expanded by Warrington’s Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (see appendix 5. 6). Both are reviewed here as 1 topic. Warrington do not have a design officer but that has not prevented their delivery of an unambiguous and concise document which clearly defines the councils requirements and which is fully supportive of the proposed application. 3.42 The SPD references other, useful design guidance, in particular building for

life. A building for Life 12 assessment is included (see appendix 5.7)

The assessment concludes that the proposal fully meets these design

aspirations

3.43 Other best practice design guidance is offered by the Commission for

Architecture and the Built Environment ( CABE).The DESIDN WAYFINDER

published by the Design Council in conjunction with (CABE) is intended to

provide help for authorities, developers and communities to judge the quality

of design. It identifies the main sources of guidance and best practice on

good design and the type of analysis that the LPA should have used to

decide whether development is acceptable. It sets out the key principles that

should be considered, summarising the more detailed guidance to which it

provides links. (refer to appendix 5.10)

3.44 With reference to ‘By Design’ the Design Wayfinder suggests that ;

A well designed place will combine functionality (does it work?), firmness (will

it last?) and delight (does it look good?).

3.45 It identifies the main the components of building form that need to be

considered, building on the foundations of character, context, urban

structure and urban grain. Issues that it suggests need to be analysed are

below:

3.46 1.Density and mix: this influences the intensity of development, and

the effect that it will have on both neighbours and the wider area.

It poses the question - Will the proposals complement the

surroundings?

9

3.47 Commentary: The proposal is a detached house on a street of

detached houses and occupying the same plot size (see appendix 5.8)

and of the same scale of accommodation as other houses on the street.

The design response is appropriate for the location.

3.48 2. Scale and height: the size of the building in relation to its

surroundings, or the size of the building and its details, particularly in

relation to the size of a person - is it human in scale? Height is an

important component of the impact of the development on views,

vistas and skylines, all important parts of the public realm.

3.49 3.Scale and massing: the combined effect of the arrangement,

volume and shape of a building or group of buildings in relation to

other buildings and spaces.

It poses the question - Will the proposals be coherent in context?

3.50 Commentary: The proposal is the same eaves and ridge height as the

buildings on the same side of the street. It is lower than houses

opposite. It follows the building line established on the street. It is a 2

storey dwelling. Scale Height and massing relate well to existing

property. (refer to appendix 5.15 Grain and massing comparison)

3.51 4.Appearance: materials: the texture, colour, pattern and durability of

materials and how they are used.

It poses the questions - How do they relate to their neighbours, the

local environment and the culture of the place?

3.52 Commentary: The proposal is for a brick built house with a

pitched tiled roof. This is exactly the same as the design of the

other houses in street and the wider area. Materials & details are

appropriate for the location and support local distinctiveness.

3.53 5.Appearance: details: do the proposals show the craftsmanship,

building techniques, decoration, lighting and style of a building.

Can the choice of building material and approach be understood?

3.54 Commentary: The level of detailing is proportionate to the scale

of building and location of the site. Although this is not a

conservation area the approach taken follows that often used

where design is particularly sensitive by using and follow

detailing taken from surrounding properties. Detailing is

appropriate for the location. Hard and soft landscape proposals

integrate the development into the wider environment.

3.55 6.Evaluation: The Design Wayfinder further advises that there are a

number of evaluation approaches and frameworks available.

10

3.56 It references Building for Life as a useful tool for assessing and

understanding whether the proposal is well-designed as does WBC

LPCS Policy QE7. Although focussed on new residential estates

it sets out broad criteria that can be applied to most forms of

development.

3.57 Commentary: A completed Building for Life assessment

accompanies this appeal at appendix 5.7. It confirms that the

design is of its highest (diamond) quality.

3.58 To further assist the achievement of good design Cabe Chief

Executive Richard Simmons wrote an essay entitled ‘Good Design:

the Fundamentals’ which was published in 2008 by CABE (see

appendix 5.14) The proposal meets his expressed aspirations.

3.59 Commentary: Reference to all these best practice guidance suggests that the design cannot be assessed as anything other than suitable and appropriate and cannot therefore contribute to harming visual amenity. 3.60 It is worth noting that Warrington do not have a design officer, nor has any formal design quality assessment informed their judgement on the application.

3.5 Review against NPPF (2E) 3.51 Extracts and commentary relevant to the application and the NPPF are contained in appendix 5.14 3.52 The proposal meets the sustainability requirements of the NPPF by adopting a highly thermally efficient ‘fabric first’ approach to CO2 reduction. Its location is sustainable within a serviced community and supported by existing public transport infrastructure. The design is adaptable to further energy efficiency and has a large south facing roof slope for future solar energy exploitation. The proposal is in line with NPPF paragraphs 59, 60 and 65 relating to design. The proposal optimises the potential of the land.

3.6 The previous appeal decision –Relevance to Application

3.61 The earlier appeal decision turned on the attractiveness and openness at the end of the close which it argued depended on the preserved trees beyond and also on the views down and into the garden and through to the stream. (See appendix 5.2- officers report) 3.62 Since the earlier appeal the 3 Lombardy poplars adjacent to the stream have been lost due to storms, these trees were viewed through the side garden of No 12. The boundary with the road is now secured by an attractive but high conifer hedge which prevents public view through and down to the stream. This high conifer hedge has been in this location for the past 25 years and together with the loss of trees has made a significant change to the character of the head of the cul de sac since the appeal decision.

11

3.63 Planning policy has changed. Significant among these changes are that the NPPF now includes a presumption in favour of development unless the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits…. The appeal decision was made against the threshold of ‘should not be unreasonably refused. The NPPF approach is instead weighted towards measurement and scale of impacts.

3.64 Warrington’s planning policies have changed. The Local Plan Core Strategy seeks to strengthen local neighbourhoods by helping create the density of population to support local shops and services and commits to supporting small scale , low impact infill developments to help achieve this. (Policy SN1 –see appendix.11).The Governments New Homes bonus will also assist the council ambition to strengthen neighbourhoods by contributing approximately £17000 in grant to the council from a single new house.

3.65 National planning policies too seek to support local employment. Self build is acknowledged to contribute to this aim. 3.66 Since the appeal decision there has been significant policy changes to promote sustainable sites and this would not have been a consideration in the previous decision.

3.67 Emerging Government policy and consultations over the last few years promote the ‘right to build’. It is expected to be a central feature of housing policy aiming to increase the number of self build plots by 500% through incremental steps. This proposal contributes to meeting housing demand by this method and whilst this house will not in itself contribute to the provision of affordable housing it can be argued that housing sales are a series of linked 'chains' and that as 1 higher priced house is sold so 1 of lower value is often sold to fund its purchase releasing an affordable property at the end of the chain. Government recognises this and has recently announced exemption from S 106 affordable contributions for self builders to encourage this approach. Weight should be attached to emerging and consulted Government policy.

3.68 It is usual for private open space which is felt to be important to a neighbourhood by a planning authorities to be identified and allocated in planning policy and termed ‘allocated private open space’. Warrington council have not identified or allocated this garden area since the 1990 appeal decision or considered other special protection from development covering this garden area under adopted planning policy. The significance attached to the neighbourhood amenity value of this site as a whole must be gauged against the period of this opportunity and the lack of action.

3.69 Commentary: Warrington and National planning policies have changed

significantly in support of development of single house plots. In

addition in the same way that emerging policies of the LPCS attract

appropriate weight emerging Government policies which identify needs

for more housing, more variety, better quality and more sustainable

locations must also be material factors which mean that the appeal

decision can no longer be considered a significant or material planning

consideration in this application.

12

3.7 Remaining objector concerns:

3.71 Congestion at the turning head, road width and parking provision:

The councils highway engineers has no concerns about the proposed additional

house, its drive position, or the amount of car parking provision.

3.72 The quality of the highway construction and drainage system in the close.

This is an entirely separate non -planning matter to be taken up with the highway authority in regard to their maintenance responsibilities for adopted highway. The road and drains are in good condition

3.73 Over developed and of excessive height.

A table of garden sizes and percentage coverage has been submitted which demonstrates that the site is equivalent in its scale of development to the majority of properties in the street. (See Appendix 5.8 ). The officers report ( Appendix 5.2 page 6) confirms its successful use of the topography , scale and massing. Appendix 5.15 also analyses the plot frontage lengths and building frontage lengths and demonstrated the application to be entirely compatible.

3.74 Loss of privacy for existing houses.

The proposal exceed the privacy distance guidance given in the councils policies

3.75 Open aspect at the head of the cul de sac lost in its entirety.

The development proposed will occupy only 50% of the frontage at the head of the cul de sac. And in mitigation will remove the conifer hedge which block the aspect and improve the retained view to the remaining TPO woodland area. The LVIA change of openness plans demonstrate the scale in change in outlook for neighbouring properties

3.76 loss of amenity does not have to be significant in order to be material

NPPF has a specific presumption in favour of development unless the adverse impacts of granting permission are ‘significant’

3.77 It is suggested that the site plan is not to scale

The plans are based on a full line and level topographical survey undertaken using the latest digital technology by a reputable and experienced independent land surveying company ( PM Surveys based at Chester)

3.78 Does not comply with affordable housing requirements

There are no affordable policies applicable to single housing plots.

13

4 CONCLUSION

Measured against the refusal decision it is clear that : 4.1 Analysis in the LVIA reveals that the loss of openness and aspect has not

caused serious harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. The presence of another house within the view of a property alone cannot be considered to be seriously harmful to its visual amenity. If this were the case this interpretation would define all new housing estate development as having seriously harmed visual amenity and be reason for all schemes to be refused planning consent.

4.2 Analysis in the LVIA reveals loss of outlook and amenity to be minor, not significant. LVIA Openness plan 1 (appendix 5.3.1) demonstrates minor impact on the openness experienced by the wider community LVIA Openness plan 2 (appendix 5.3.2) demonstrates very minor adverse change in the unobstructed outlook from immediate neighbouring houses. LVIA Openness plan 3 (appendix 5.3.3) demonstrates little practical change in the view occupiers of adjoining property would have. LVIA Openness plan 4 ( appendix 5.3.4) demonstrates that adjacent properties would continue to have high quality amenity from all principal rooms.

4.3 The proposal fully meets the requirements of policy QE6 and the objectives behind it.

4.4 The proposal has been tested against Building for life and accords fully with policy QE7

4.5 The proposal has been tested against the SPD and other best practice design guidance and accords fully with the SPD

4.6 The proposal complies with the NPPF 4.7 Objectors concerns are unfounded.

In summary

The proposed dwelling meets council policies in respect of overlooking and privacy. It does not overshadow other property. Parking, highway and traffic aspects meet with council policy. The development is not a potential source of harm to any other ‘amenity‘ considerations. The site is not in a conservation area. The development layout and density of the proposal are fully in keeping with other property and garden sizes in the street. The design, materials and appearance of the proposal is similar to existing dwellings in the street. It contributes to sustainable development through its adaptability, design and location. It provides suitable access and accommodation for disabled persons. It accords with the development plan and Policy QE6 , QE7 and the SPD- design and construction. There are no arboricultural or nature conservation issues. The Environment Agency have no flood risk objection. The LVIA demonstrates that concerns about the loss of openness are exaggerated . The Parish Council, guardians of amenity for the wider local community, have not raised any objection to the proposed development. The previous appeal decision against the development of this site can no longer be considered as a material consideration as both national and council planning policies have changed significantly during the intervening 25 years. It accords with national planning policy. The NPPF positively supports self-build.

The proposal contributes to much needed national housing demand. It contributes to the stock of low carbon properties. It supports local services. It increases choice of housing offer. It creates local employment and supports the local economy. It provides high quality build and design and meets the aspirations of best practice guidance on design quality.

For these reasons the inspector is respectfully requested to allow the appeal.