42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 13 July 2021 by Martin Small BA(Hons) BPl DipCM MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th August 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/J2210/W/21/3271149 42 Dickens Avenue, Canterbury, CT1 1EH • 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 Mr E Mersin against the decision of Canterbury City Council. • The application Ref CA/20/01851, dated 24 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 27 January 2021. • The development proposed is described as construction of end of terrace, 3 bedroom, 4 person house and elevational alterations to existing house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. During the course of the appeal the appellant drew my attention to a Technical Note Nutrient Assessment dated 20 January 20211. Although not referenced in the Council’s evidence, the appellant has demonstrated that it was submitted to the Council prior to the determination of the application2. The Council was advised of this matter3. I have therefore accepted the Assessment without prejudice to the Council’s case and I return to it below. 3.

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 20 July 2021. I have determined this appeal in the context of the revised Framework, on which the main parties have been given the opportunity to comment. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; ii) whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling; iii) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 42 Dickens Avenue with regard to the private garden area; and the effect of the proposal on the safe and convenient use of the highway with regard to parking. 1 Email dated 30 June 2021 2 Email to the Council dated 20 January 2021 with the Technical Note attached 3 Emails to the Council dated 1 July 2021 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J2210/W/21/3271149 Reasons Character and appearance 5. Dickens Avenue is a mature residential area comprising principally semi- detached with some terraced 2-storey dwellings. The road forms a long crescent with the staggered alignment of the dwellings on the inside of part of the curve, including No 42 Dickens Avenue, a particular feature. These properties are set back from the road with a mixture of open and enclosed lawns to their frontages and an open grassed area to the side of No 42. Although this grassed area is of little intrinsic merit, it contributes to the reasonably spacious character and appearance of this part of Dickens Avenue. 6. The appeal site comprises walled garden areas and the open grassed area to the side of No 42. The proposal would result in the loss of a moderate proportion of this grassed area. Although open areas would be retained to the front and side of the proposed dwelling, it would have a significantly smaller frontage to the road than prevails in the area. The proposed plot would be shallower than that of No 42 and No 44 and substantially shallower than other plots on this side of Dickens Avenue. 7.

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision The corner of the proposed dwelling would be very close to the road and the dwelling would be close to the flank wall of No 44 with a substantial degree of overlap. Therefore, the proposal would result in a loss of the characteristic spaciousness of this part of Dickens Avenue. Although the proposed dwelling would be of a similar size to those prevailing in the locality and align with Nos 42 and 40, respecting the staggered layout, the proposal would appear cramped and at odds with the prevailing pattern of development on Dickens Avenue. 8. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of Dickens Avenue. Accordingly, in this respect, the proposal would conflict with Policy DBE3 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017 (the Local Plan) which seeks high quality design that has regard to, amongst other things, the character, setting and context of the site and the impact on local townscape character. Living conditions of future occupiers 9. The appellant contends that the proposal would provide a private amenity area for the proposed dwelling of approximately 36 - 37 m2, although the Council suggests that that the rear amenity space would be 25 m2.

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision The Council has not drawn my attention to any adopted standards for garden sizes. However, whatever its size, the garden would be dominated by the flank wall of No 44 and directly overlooked by a first floor window in that elevation. Moreover, there would be a clear line of sight from this landing window into the rear bedroom of the proposed dwelling. 10. A degree of overlooking is to be expected in built-up areas and the window serves a non-habitable room. However, the proximity of this window and direct line of sight would result in an unsatisfactory private garden area for the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling and an inadequate degree of privacy for the users of the bedroom. I acknowledge that the proposed dwelling would have garden areas to the front and side. These could be enclosed to provide privacy from passers-by, but that is not the proposal before me. In any event, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J2210/W/21/3271149 these garden areas would be of an awkward shape and the rear garden would still be overlooked by the first floor window of No 44. 11. I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupiers of the dwelling. Accordingly, in this respect, the proposal would conflict with Policies DBE3 and DBE4, to which the appellant refers, of the Local Plan which require, among other things, the provision of appropriate and acceptable amenity space. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 130 (f) of the revised Framework, which sets out that planning decisions should ensure that developments have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Living conditions of the occupiers of No 42 12. The proposal would result in the loss of existing areas of private garden for No 42, leaving an area of approximately 31 - 32 m2. The garden would be of a regular shape, have an open aspect and be sufficient for sitting out, play and drying washing. Furthermore, the property has a lawn to the front that could potentially be enclosed and used as a secure garden area. The occupiers of No 42 would therefore retain an adequate garden area. 13.

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 42. Accordingly, in this respect, the proposal would comply with Policy DBE3 of the Local Plan which requires, amongst other things, the protection of the amenity of neighbouring buildings and with paragraph 130 f) of the revised Framework. Highway safety and convenience 14. The Council’s adopted local parking standards are set out in Appendix 4 of the Local Plan. For a 3-bedroom dwelling as proposed, the standard is 1.5 spaces. The proposal includes no off-street parking provision and therefore fails to meet the adopted standard. 15. However, the appellant contends that the adjacent roads are lightly parked and are not subject to parking restrictions. Neither the Council nor local residents have provided evidence to the contrary or of parking problems in the locality. Moreover, there is a layby capable of accommodating several vehicles opposite the appeal site. Consequently, it would be possible for future occupiers to park on the street or in the layby. 16. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not adversely affect highway safety or convenience.

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision Accordingly, the proposal would not conflict in this respect with Policy T9 of the Local Plan, which sets out that the Council will have regard to the parking standards. Nor would it conflict with paragraph 111 of the revised Framework, as there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety nor a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network. Other Matters Designated habitats sites 17. The appeal site lies in the catchment of the River Stour, within which the water environment is one of the most important for water-dependent wildlife in the United Kingdom. That water environment includes Stodmarsh National Nature Reserve / Site of Special Scientific Interest (NNR / SSSI). The NNR / SSSI is https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J2210/W/21/3271149 internationally important for its wildlife and is consequently designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. 18. The qualifying features of the SPA are its assemblages of waterbirds and breeding birds; Great bittern, Gadwall, Northern Shoveler and Hen Harrier. The Desmoulins whorl snail is the qualifying feature of the SAC. The conservation objectives of the SPA and SAC are, in summary, to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained in order to protect the habitats and the birds and snail that depend on them. 19. Natural England (NE) has identified that some of the designated Stodmarsh Lake units are in an unfavourable condition due to their existing levels of nutrients (both phosphorus and nitrogen), thought to be primarily from wastewater from existing housing and agricultural sources. The nutrients cause eutrophication and adversely affect the protected habitats and species. Whilst research is ongoing, the designated sites are therefore thought to be at risk from additional nutrient inputs, including from new developments coming forward in the Stodmarsh catchment. 20.

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision Although there remains some uncertainty, NE has adopted a precautionary approach and is of the view that a likely significant effect on the designated sites due to the increase in wastewater from such new development cannot be ruled out. The appellant’s Technical Note Nutrient Assessment includes a nutrient budget which indicates that the proposal would result in an increase in nitrogen and phosphorus potentially affecting the designated sites. Whilst the additional nutrient load from a single dwelling would be very limited in isolation, when considered with other plans and projects, it is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the designated sites. 21. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) require the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) before giving any permission where there are likely significant effects on the integrity of designated habitats sites from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. 22.

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision Therefore, had I reached different conclusions on the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether the living conditions of the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be satisfactory, it would have been necessary for me to undertake an AA and give further consideration to the likely effectiveness of any mitigation measures. 23. The appellant suggests that details of these could be the subject of a condition were planning permission to be granted, although I have no indication before me what such measures might be and thus would not have been able to be certain that they could be implemented and would be effective. However, as I am dismissing this appeal for other reasons, it has not been necessary for me to undertake an AA. Other considerations 24. I accept that certain works may be undertaken as permitted development as contended by the appellant. However, the proposal before me clearly indicates the appellant’s desire for a new dwelling rather than an extension to No 42. Moreover, a single-storey extension would not result in the harm I have https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J2210/W/21/3271149 identified above. I have therefore given this matter very little weight in my determination. 25. The appellant refers to a known shortage of housing in the area but has not provided any evidence of such a shortage. I note the support for the proposal from a local resident. However, this does not outweigh the harm I have found above and so does not indicate that permission should be granted. Conclusion 26. I have found above that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no considerations that indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. 27. For this reason, and having regard to the other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.

42 Dickens Avenue, CANTERBURY, CT1 1EH — Canterbury City Council — Martin Small INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5