Appeal 6000193

The appeal is dismissed.

Although the Council’s third reason for refusal refers to the cumulative impact of the lack of dedicated off-street parking for both the appeal proposal and the existing dwelling, their appeal statement confirms that the concerns centre on the loss of parking for the host dwelling and not with regards to the lack of parking provision for the proposed property. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Therefore, the main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to the amount and quality of indoor and outdoor space and outlook; and • whether the loss of parking to the host dwelling would be harmful to highway safety.

The appeal site is located in a predominantly residential area with a mix of house types, ages and styles. In the vicinity of the appeal site there are semi-detached dwellings and bungalows with good size, elongated rear gardens.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling with a single storey garage to the side. The property has a gable roof, whilst its semi-detached neighbour has a hipped roof, in common with many of the other properties in the street. The property is in a prominent location at the junction of [address] with [address]. This results in a sense of spaciousness and a triangular shaped garden area to the side and rear.

The constraints of the site mean that the frontage of the proposed one-bedroom dwelling to [address] would be uncharacteristically narrow and its footprint being roughly triangular in shape, would be at odds with the regularity of the semi-detached properties elsewhere in the road. It would also reduce the size of the plot for the host dwelling. This would be at odds with the generous size rear gardens elsewhere in the street.

However, the location of the appeal site at the junction of the two roads, means that it shares little in common with properties on either road. The shape and size of the existing plot is already at odds with the generally good sized elongated plots on [address]. The lack of window openings on the end elevation presents a blank frontage to [address].

In responding to its location at the junction, the appeal property would introduce windows to the elevation facing [address]. It would also match the materials, building line, ridge and eaves height of the properties in [address] and reintroduce a hipped end to the roof. For these reasons, it would not appear visually intrusive or incongruous and the sense of spaciousness arising from its location would not be harmfully reduced.

In summary, the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031, adopted November 2021 (LP) which seek high quality design that contributes to the creation of successful places.

Policy D6 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 (TLP) sets out the housing standards and qualitative aspects that new developments are expected to meet, to ensure successful sustainable housing.

With regards to private amenity space, it requires a minimum provision of 5 sqm (square metres) with a minimum depth and width of 1.5 metres which the appeal proposal would comply with. However, Policy 7 of the LP requires an appropriate level of high-quality amenity space and in my view, this amounts to more than just its size.

The outdoor space would wraparound the proposed dwelling. The size and shape of the appeal site, together with the proposed footprint of the dwelling and the existing single storey extension to the rear of the host dwelling, would result in a very constrained outdoor space at the side and rear. However, there would be an additional area in the northern most part of the site which would not be similarly constrained. As well as providing an area for cycle and bin storage and to hang out washing, the appeal site would provide an area suitable for its occupiers to sit and relax such that, overall, there would be an appropriate provision of outdoor space for future occupiers of the one-bedroom dwelling.

Given the appeal site’s location at the junction of two roads, boundary fencing would be required to secure the privacy of future occupiers in the property and its garden. The outlook to the rear from the living room window would be significantly constrained by the boundary fence and the existing single storey extension to the rear of the host dwelling. The main living room windows to the side would face directly towards the boundary fence with [address], in very close proximity. This would lead to a sense of enclosure which would be oppressive. Whilst there would be one further window in the north elevation serving the living space, it would not prevent the overall sense of enclosure to the main living room. There would be a very poor outlook from the main habitable space on the ground floor such that the appeal proposal would result in an oppressive and poor-quality living environment.

Policy 7 of the LP requires that developments meet the [name] (NDSS). The Council say that the proposed dwelling would have a floorspace of 54 sqm which falls below the NDSS minimum requirement of 58 sqm, which the appellant contends the scheme complies with. Even if it was the latter, compliance with the minimum floorspace requirement in the NDSS does not overcome my concerns about the oppressive and poor-quality outlook which would be experienced by occupiers of the proposed development.

I have not identified harm with regards to the amount and quality of outdoor space. Consequently, no conflict with Policy D6 of the TLP would arise. However, the proposal would not provide quality living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook. This would be contrary to Policy 7 of the LP which seeks to ensure that the amenity and quality of life of future residents would not be adversely impacted.

As set out above, the Council’s concerns relate to the loss of the existing vehicular parking for the host dwelling owing to the proposed demolition of the garage.

The evidence suggests that the garage is 2.2 metres wide, with a door opening of 2 metres. Even if the opening were sufficient to allow an average-sized car to enter, the limited internal space would make it extremely difficult for the driver to exit the vehicle. This level of inconvenience means that using the garage for parking would be impractical.

I saw that whilst there are some parking restrictions in the vicinity of the site, on-street parking is available on [address]. I do not doubt that this is in high demand, but the presence of alternative parking options reinforces my view that the garage is unlikely to be used for parking by occupiers of the host property.

As a result, the demolition of the garage would not remove parking for the host property and overspill parking onto the surrounding roads would not occur. Consequently, no conflict would arise with Policy T6 of TLP and Policies 23 and 24 of the LP which set out parking standards and lend support to development which ensures the safe and efficient use of the highway.

The evidence before me indicates that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Therefore, the Council’s policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed out-of-date and Paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged. This means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The redevelopment of this small site in an existing residential area with good access to services and facilities would provide one additional dwelling. This would make an important but minor contribution to housing supply. There would also be some economic benefits arising from the construction and occupation of the dwelling. Together, I give these modest weight.

[name] have not identified harm in respect of the effect on the character and appearance of the area or parking provision, I have found that the appeal proposal would result in an oppressive and poor-quality living environment. The harm to the living conditions of future occupiers would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits.

The proposed development would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.