Planning Appeal Win for Two Detached Dwellings in Stock, Essex
We are pleased to have secured a planning appeal win against a refusal made by Chelmsford City Council. The proposed scheme had sought two infill dwellings in the village of Stock in Essex.
The proposal constitutes an infill development and redevelopment of an existing property, with some development on the existing garden land. It occupies a prominent but under-utilised position within the heart of the village.
Chelmsford City Council’s Reasons for Refusal against an Infill Development
In making their decision, the Chelmsford City Council gave only one design-related reason for refusal. It was the Council’s view that:
The proposed dwellings would have uncharacteristically deep plan forms. They would fill the width of the site and would be significantly and uncharacteristically bulkier than the neighbouring properties. The proportions of the proposed houses would fail to reflect the character of the area where dwellings typically have narrow spans, two-storey ridge heights and a more spacious setting within their plots.
The Planning Appeal Case for Infill Housing
On this project, we acted as the planning consultant, working with the architect, E&M Design Partnership.
The Appeal Statement that we prepared provided a thorough review of the relevant design-related planning policies and material considerations and built upon the evidence submitted within the original Design and Access Statement to demonstrate that the proposed residential development would be an appropriate addition to the site and surrounding area and can be suitably integrated into the streetscene.
This involved an in-depth contextual analysis, taking into account: the width of the site; depth of the buildings; bulk and mass; spaciousness within the plot; roof form; impact upon the streetscene; and landscaping.
It was clear that Chelmsford City Council had failed to understand the site context and following the presentation of our evidence to the Planning Inspectorate, we are pleased that the Planning Inspector considering this case agreed with our professional opinions.
The Appeal Decision
In making the decision, the Planning Inspector made the following comments:
The two houses have clearly been designed to reflect their respective neighbours so themselves differ, but without harmful contrast due to their comparable scale and height.
The front elevations to each are well balanced, suitably proportioned and generally in keeping with the houses to each side.
The new houses would not appear incongruous and succeed in preserving a satisfactory appearance and consistent rhythm to the street scene.
There is no harm from using the roof spaces for accommodation and, where there are dormer windows and small rooflights to permit this, these fit in with the overall designs.
The parking spaces would be set behind front hedges to limit any visual harm from replacing lawn with hardstanding, avoiding an unduly car-dominated appearance.
The plan depth would not create an appearance of excessive bulk due to the approach to massing.
The scheme keeps the wider sides of the two houses together, so the quite narrow gap means these broader elevations are largely screened from the street.
Contact Us about for Infill Development Project
For more information about infill and backland development on garden land, please read here.
At A D P, we provide professional town planning advice, and if you feel aggrieved by a recent application refusal, please contact us to understand how we can assist with your project to overcome any negative decisions. You can contact us at mail@adpltd.co.uk or use the form below.
