Appeal 6000261

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [site address] with regard to overbearing impact and privacy and with regard to overbearing impact so far as it concerns the occupiers of [address].

[address] is predominantly characterised by two-storey dwellings, typically arranged as terraces or semi-detached properties, with a small number of detached houses. The architectural styles and facing materials vary, contributing to a mixed streetscape. Most dwellings are positioned close to the pavement, although building lines differ, and occasional properties are set back significantly compared to their neighbouring buildings.

The close siting, limited gaps, and scale of surrounding dwellings create an enclosed and densely developed residential character. However, the development pattern, where roads branch off from one another, results in deep rear gardens forming intermittent gaps that introduce areas of openness, providing visual relief within the dense built form. These spaces allow the depth and scale of houses and gardens to remain visible, which is a notable aspect of the area’s character. Where there are outbuildings within rear gardens, they are typically small-scale single storey buildings and thus they have little impact on the openness of the rear gardens.

The appeal site, forming part of the rear garden of [site address] (No. 3), contributes to one such area of open relief, offering views across gardens towards properties on [address]. Next to the site is [address], a small cul-de-sac serving a cluster of houses, which further enhances this sense of openness in the locality.

The proposed development comprises a two-storey dwelling designed to be lower in height than the neighbouring properties and noticeably shallower in depth compared to both neighbouring dwellings and others within the locality. The design includes a ground-floor bay window, a feature commonly found in the area and would be constructed using red brick with a tiled roof. In isolation, the house would reflect key characteristics of the surrounding streetscape and would not appear incongruous.

However, despite its smaller scale relative to neighbouring properties, the building would occupy a substantial portion of No. 3’s rear garden and leave only a limited separation gap between the two buildings. The introduction of a two-storey structure in this position would significantly reduce the sense of openness within the appeal site and create a more enclosed street scene. While compact development is typical of the area, the existing open spaces over rear gardens around junctions contribute positively to local character, and this proposal would erode that quality.

Furthermore, the siting of the dwelling within a notably shallower plot than those nearby, accentuated by the established development pattern, would give the impression that the building would be constrained in the available space. The shallow front garden would be consistent with the development around it and whilst the dwelling and garden would generally accord with the [name], the resulting arrangement, including the side-facing garden of No. 3, would not align comfortably with the prevailing layout of surrounding properties. Although a gap would remain next to [address], the close proximity of the new dwelling to No. [address] would diminish the sense of spaciousness that currently enhances the character and appearance of this part of the street.

Fencing has been erected along the boundary of No. [site address] next to the pavement and I note in the [name] that this was not the case when that report was written. The Council notes that this part of No. 3’s garden was bounded by low-level fencing. [name] do not seek to determine whether the taller fencing was erected lawfully, it was present at the time of my site visit and forms part of the scheme under consideration.

The rear gardens of the houses on the corners of junctions, like the appeal site, often have tall boundary fencing along them and the fencing that has been installed does not extend around the entirety of the garden with the front of the property retaining low level boundary treatment. This is similar in form to other boundary treatment for other properties on corners nearby and there are examples of similar timber fencing at the crossroads No. 3 is at. As such, the fencing around the garden for No. 3 is similar in design to other properties in the area and given its limited height and because it does not fully encompass the garden it retains the openness around the front of the dwelling on the crossroads.

I observed that other dwellings have been built nearby that do not necessarily follow the established pattern of development in the area, however, these generally appear to be smaller scale buildings set back much further from the roadside and as such, the effect of them upon the character and appearance of the area has been minimised because of this. Furthermore, these are generally located between dwellings and not next to a junction like the appeal site. For these reasons the scheme before me differs from those other dwellings in the area and the effect they have upon the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst permission was granted at appeal for a dwelling within the rear garden of [address] next to a junction, the approved dwelling is a bungalow and thus smaller in scale than what is proposed. Additionally, while that area is also predominantly residential in character large outbuildings within rear gardens are not uncommon. As such buildings similar in size to the bungalow are not necessarily uncommon within rear gardens next to side roads, unlike the area around the appeal site. Accordingly, there are site specific circumstances that are notable differences between the [address] scheme and the development before me. Each case must be determined on its own merits, and these differences have led me to come to a different conclusion in this instance.

I note that this scheme was submitted in an attempt to overcome the reasons for refusal in a previous application. However, I have considered this scheme on its merits, and for the above reasons, I have found that it would harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the development would not comply with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (LP). These expect developments, amongst other matters, to be of high-quality design that respect, reinforce and complement the local street scene.

The proposed dwelling would be positioned within the rear garden of No. 3, an end-terrace property. It would be located relatively close to the garden retained for No. 3 and near the side boundary adjoining 67 Mildmay’s (No. 67) garden. Currently, the outlook from No. 3 is primarily towards the flank wall of [address] (No. 7), situated across [address], with other surrounding properties set at a considerable distance from the rear-facing rooms.

Although the proposed dwelling would sit close to the rear boundary of No. 3’s retained plot, the ground-floor kitchen benefits from dual-aspect windows, ensuring its outlook would not be fully enclosed by the scheme. The nearest first-floor window serves a bathroom, while the rear-facing bedroom window is positioned behind the staggered rear elevation of No. 3, partially screening views of the proposed dwelling. Furthermore, as the new dwelling would be set forward of this bedroom and the bathroom, the outlook would remain primarily towards the flank wall of No. 7, meaning the sense of enclosure would not be significant from this room.

Within the garden of No. 3, the outlook would become more enclosed due to the presence of the proposed dwelling and No. 3 itself; however, a gap would remain between the two buildings which would ensure the garden would not be fully enclosed on those two sides. Additionally, the garden’s position next to the road ensures that properties on the opposite side are sufficiently distant, preventing enclosure on other sides. While the garden would be more enclosed than at present, for the above reasons the proposal would not create an overbearing living environment. The fencing around No. 3’s garden would maintain privacy from views across the road, and the proposed dwelling’s first-floor windows would be obscurely glazed to safeguard privacy.

The outlook from the rear of No. 67 currently comprises views of the flank wall of No. 7, together with the rear gardens of properties on [address] and across No. 3’s garden towards houses on the opposite side of [address]. Consequently, the outlook is generally open and unenclosed due to the separation distance between No. 67 and surrounding dwellings.

The proposed development would introduce a two-storey dwelling positioned a modest distance from the side boundary of No. 67’s garden. However, given that it would not be sited directly to the rear of it and would be set back from the side boundary, the proposal would not substantially affect the principal outlook from within No. 67, which primarily encompasses No. [address] beyond. Therefore, the sense of enclosure from within the property would not be significantly harmed.

While the new dwelling would be located close to the side boundary of No. 67’s rear garden, its modest height and width, combined with its position to one side, would ensure that the garden retains an open outlook on other sides. As such, although the garden would experience some degree of enclosure, this would not result in an overbearing or harmful impact.

Therefore, the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 3 or No. 67 and would comply with Policy 7 of the LP and Policy D6 of the London Plan. These expect developments, amongst other matters, to ensure they do not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy or outlook.

[name] note comments from interested parties regarding pollution and other matters as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it has not been necessary for me to consider these matters further.

The Council acknowledges that it can only demonstrate a 3.4-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole having regard to a number of matters.

The proposed development would deliver a single dwelling, and the Framework identifies that small and medium sites, like the appeal site, can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement for an area and can often be built out relatively quickly. In light of the Council’s housing land supply position, I attribute moderate weight to the proposal’s contribution to addressing this shortfall and its contribution towards significantly boosting the supply of housing, making effective use of under-utilised land in a predominantly residential area with access to alternative transport options to nearby services and facilities.

There would be economic benefits both during and after construction. The dwelling would be built to provide step free access and assist people with reduced reach. The occupiers would also contribute towards the social fabric of the area, and the scheme would also lead to landscaping enhancements within the garden. Given the limited scale of the scheme, I attribute limited weight to these benefits.

Whilst the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 3 or No. 67, the lack of harm in this regard weighs neither for nor against the development. Furthermore, the provision of two off street parking spaces would be consistent with the parking standards in the London Plan which would be expected of most developments and weighs neither for nor against the scheme.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and this would lead to a conflict with local development plan policies. Policies 7 and 26 of the LP state, amongst other matters, that developments should be of high-quality design that respect, reinforce and complement the local street scene. These policies are generally consistent with paragraph 135(b) of the Framework which states that decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping. While the Framework supports the use of suitable sites within existing settlements for homes, for the above reasons the site would not be suitable and as such, the development would not accord with the Framework in this regard. Taking into consideration the above matters, the scheme would conflict with relevant policies in the Framework, and I attach significant weight to the harm that would arise.

Overall, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, even considered cumulatively, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.