Appeal 6000225

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal, the appellant sought to revise the application form to change the existing use from agricultural to residential and to amend the block and location plans to show a different red line boundary for the site. However, the Procedural Guide for Planning Appeals makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. My consideration of these amendments could cause procedural unfairness or prejudice to interested parties. Therefore, I have determined the appeal based on the application form and plans considered by the Council.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the appeal site is grey belt land and whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to outlook and access; • whether the proposal would make adequate provision for affordable housing; • the effect of the proposed development on protected species, with particular regard to bats and great crested newts; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) states that the Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development, and development proposals that would harm the Green Belt should be refused except where very special circumstances exist.

Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework list the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. These include development of homes utilising grey belt land where it would meet several criteria (paragraph 155) and the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (paragraph 154(g)).

Grey belt is defined in the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework. Regardless of whether the site is grey belt and whether the ‘[name] in paragraphs 156-157 of the Framework apply, the Council and the appellant agree that the development would not be in a sustainable location. Therefore, the proposal would not fall within the exception in paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The definition of previously developed land in the Framework refers to land which is occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land. It excludes land that is or was last occupied by agricultural buildings. The existing buildings on the site comprise a large barn structure and two small outbuildings. It is indicated that the land is not part of an agricultural holding, though the barn has the appearance of an agricultural building. It accommodates various items including machinery for land maintenance, tools, cables and pallets.

As set out in the Framework, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and often connotates the absence of development. It is an open textured term and can have both spatial and visual dimensions.

The appeal site comprises a cluster of buildings and a large area of hardstanding in the southern portion of the site and a sizeable area of open grassland to the north of the built development. The proposal is to replace the barn and outbuildings with a building of a similar scale and footprint containing four dwellings, form garden areas and provide six parking spaces on the existing hardsurfaced area between the new structure and [site address] .

The creation of front gardens and separate garden amenity areas would result in significant subdivision of the existing open land. Further, the proposal would introduce boundary treatments, cycle and refuse stores and other domestic paraphernalia in and around the gardens, together with paths to the new houses. In addition, the proposed scheme would lead to more people accessing the site and using the hardstanding for the manoeuvring, turning and parking of vehicles. Such features and activities would unacceptably reduce spatial and visual openness compared to the existing use of the site.

Therefore, regardless of whether the site is previously developed land, the proposal would substantially harm the openness of the Green Belt and would not fall within the exception in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

There are road facing detached houses spread out sporadically along [site address] , including on the appeal site. Barn type structures are less evident but are not untypical in a rural area. The buildings along this part of the lane are mainly in large plots surrounded by fields which gives the area a predominantly spacious and rural character.

The proposed cluster of four terraced dwellings would be at odds with the scattered pattern of detached houses in the locality. The appellant indicates that the design and scale of the proposed building is influenced by the existing building and long barnlike structures in the area. However, unlike other dwellings in the vicinity, the proposed houses would be side facing, with a prominent and visually intrusive flank gable frontage to the lane.

Each property would have a front garden with a communal footpath separating them from the individual garden amenity areas surrounded by 1.8m high boundary fence panels. The considerable subdivision of the space in front of the new houses would substantially harm the open character of the area. Further, the proposed boundary fences, paths and cycle and refuse stores would result in significant urbanisation of the rural environment. Due to the extent and position of the garden areas adjacent to the new houses, the garden boundary treatments would unduly dominate the appearance of the site when entering from the lane.

A condition requiring details of the boundary treatments to be approved could result in softer, landscaped boundaries. However, this would not overcome the harm to the open appearance caused by the substantial subdivision of the existing undeveloped grassed area.

Consequently, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 (HLP) where they require development to be of a high quality design which responds to the distinctive character of the area, local building forms and patterns of development.

Policy D6 of the LP recognises that the qualitative aspects of a development are key to ensuring successful sustainable housing, and accompanying table 3.2 sets out the key qualitative aspects which should be addressed in the design of housing developments. Amongst other things, it requires dwellings to be orientated to optimise opportunities for visual interest through a range of intermediate and longer range views, with the views from individual dwellings considered at an early design stage. It also requires the provision of clear and convenient routes with a feeling of safety.

There is a large L-shaped building adjacent to the existing barn. The proposed dwellings would be set back around 3m from this, with ground floor kitchen windows and upper floor bedroom windows facing towards it. Due to the size of the existing building and its proximity to the new houses, this structure would dominate the outlook from the kitchen spaces and rear bedrooms at plots 2, 3 and 4 and have an unduly overbearing effect on the future occupiers of those rooms.

The proposed car parking spaces would be located beside the house on plot 1 and adjacent to the roadside boundary. The closest parking space would lie around 9m from the dwelling on plot 2 and further from the houses on plots 3 and 4. If occupiers of plot 4 had to use the parking spaces 5 or 6, they would need to walk around 35m to reach the house from their parked vehicle. The proposed layout would allow for small front gardens and private amenity space in excess of the policy requirements. However, the significant distances between the houses on plots 2, 3 and 4 and the proposed parking spaces would not provide a convenient walking route for residents to access their vehicles.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to outlook and access. This would be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP and Policy 7 of the HLP. Together, these require residential developments to provide an attractive and accessible living environment and protect the amenity of future residents including in relation to outlook, amongst other things.

Policy 4 of the HLP requires residential development with a site area of more than 1,000sqm to provide at least 35% affordable housing. Although the development area for the proposed dwellings is under 700sqm, the area within the red line site boundary significantly exceeds 1,000sqm.

The appellant indicates that the entire site within their ownership was included in the red line boundary for the purpose of biodiversity net gain. Nevertheless, due to the size of the site, the scheme triggers the need for affordable housing in accordance with Policy 4, but none is proposed.

Therefore, the proposal would fail to make adequate provision for affordable housing. This would be contrary to Policy 4 of the HLP.

The Council is concerned that the structures proposed for demolition may provide opportunities for roosting bats and that there are ponds within 250m of the site which may support great crested newts (GCNs), both of which are [name]. In response, the appellant submitted a [name] (PEA) which assesses the potential impact of the proposed scheme on various species.

As part of the PEA, a field survey was carried out in April 2024. This found no evidence or opportunities for roosting bats within the existing building, concluding that it has negligible suitability for this protected species. Whilst the main mown grass habitat on site provides negligible habitat for bats, the PEA indicates that the hedgerows and trees in the wider area have good foraging and commuting potential for bat species. Therefore, it recommends the implementation of a soft-lighting strategy during the construction phase and post-development use.

There is known presence of GCNs around 650m north of the site. Further, the field survey found that a pond within 250m of the site has good suitability to support breeding GCNs. However, as the site comprises managed lawn, buildings and hardstanding, the PEA indicates that it has low suitability for providing GCN habitat and that this species is unlikely to be present on it. Nevertheless, it finds that there is a possibility of GCNs very occasionally passing through the site and recommends the implementation of a precautionary site clearance method.

The PEA also considers the potential impacts on other species, including breeding birds and terrestrial mammals, concluding that these could be protected via reasonable avoidance methods prior to and during construction.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm protected species, with particular regard to bats and great crested newts. This would accord with Policies 10 and 27 of the HLP where they require developments to incorporate green infrastructure and not adversely impact on biodiversity.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to Policy G7 of the LP. However, as this relates to the retention of trees and woodland and the proposal would not affect these, it is not directly relevant to the impact of the appeal scheme on protected species. Other considerations

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the housing supply and highlights the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make, whilst supporting development which makes efficient use of land. Policy 3 of the HLP sets a housing target of at least 12,505 homes over the first 10 years of the plan period, with 1,500 dwellings to be delivered on small sites.

The 2023 [name] results confirm delivery at 61% over the previous three years, below the 75% referred to in the Framework. Further, the Council accepts that it has a 3.5 year housing land supply, below the five year requirement set out in the Framework.

The proposed development would make more efficient use of the land, making some difference to addressing the housing shortfall in Havering. Therefore, I attribute modest weight to this benefit in this instance.

The proposal would achieve more than 10% biodiversity net gain. As this is now a statutory requirement for such proposals, I accord limited weight to this benefit.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including neighbouring living conditions, flood risk, amount of parking, impacts on heritage assets, and highway safety. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the scheme.

The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the area, unacceptable living conditions for future occupants and a failure to make adequate provision for affordable housing. Substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I give modest weight to the provision of additional dwellings and limited weight to the provision of biodiversity net gain. However, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it would be contrary to Policy G2 of the LP and the Framework.

Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged as the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In such circumstances, this states that development should be approved unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development. In this appeal, the application of the Framework’s Green Belt policies provides a strong reason to refuse the development. The proposal would also conflict with Policies D6 and G2 of the LP and Policies 4, 7 and 26 of the HLP.

Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework and the very special circumstances test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.