Appeal 6000262

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development in the banner heading above reflects the amended wording as agreed between the Council and the appellant.

The main issues are; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and, • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the first floor flats above 96 and 100 [site address] with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site is occupied by a rectangular shaped single storey commercial building situated immediately behind the rear elevation of 98 [site address] , a two storey mid terrace commercial property. Together with the traditional two storey dwellings which characterise the Burnway streetscape, the associated terrace fronting [site address] has a pitched roof, and comprises of ground floor commercial uses with mainly residential flats above.

The appeal building, which is only partially visible from [site address] but is exposed to Burnway to the south, possesses a flat roof above rendered walls and a series of small square windows across its lengthy road-facing elevation. As a subordinate structure to the rear of the terrace, its form and scale is broadly consistent with several surrounding extensions and outbuildings to this side of [site address] . Although inelegant and box-like in its appearance, this compatibility with adjacent similar development is such that on my site visit I observed the existing building to have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the locality.

The proposed second storey addition would almost double the building’s height, with its resulting flat roof level exceeding the adjacent terrace’s rear eaves line. Owing to this significant increase to its massing, the building would no longer retain a harmonious scale in contrast with the more modest scale of comparable rearward neighbouring developments. Furthermore, with a departure from the existing single storey form, its raised flat roof would jar with the well-established pitched roofs which characterise the surrounding two storey properties.

Although matching materials would be used in its construction, this would not mitigate the impact of the additional storey, which would lead to the building appearing as a harmfully bulky and dominant structure, conspicuously at odds with its context through its unwieldy design. The unsuitability of its block-shaped form would be emphasised by the building’s proximity to the terrace’s rear elevation, with the ensuing awkwardly cramped relationship to be plainly apparent from neighbouring properties and Burnway. Moreover, the new upper floor’s extensive length would be perceived from [site address] as an incongruous projection to the terrace, infilling what is currently seen in this view as a welcome break in the area’s built form.

For these reasons, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In doing so, it would conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 - 2031 which, amongst other things, seeks that development is of a high quality design, respects the established scale, massing and height of the surrounding context and complements the local streetscene.

The proposal would be sited directly behind the first floor of No 98, which is in commercial use in connection with the ground floor below. However, it is my understanding from the Councils’ evidence, third party representations and my site visit that the adjoining upper floors to either side above Nos 96 and 100 are residential flats, with further additional flats set within the terrace beyond No 100. I note that the existence of these dwellings is not disputed by the appellant.

By virtue of the combination of its closeness to rear first floor windows at Nos 96 and 100, and its considerable scale and mass, the additional storey would have an unduly overbearing and domineering effect upon the rearward outlook afforded to occupiers of both these flats. In particular, given No 100’s positioning to the north of the site and the existence of a first floor rear extension to its neighbouring adjoining flat above No 102, the occupiers of its first floor flat would be the most acutely impacted by the scheme. Due to its positioning and bulk, the proposal would additionally give rise to an unacceptable degree of enclosure and reduction in daylight and sunlight that would be detrimental to the occupiers’ reasonable enjoyment of this property.

In reaching this assessment, I have taken into account the specific layout of the site and surroundings properties, including the very limited separation distance of the proposal from the terrace’s main rear building line.

Accordingly, the proposal would have a harmful effect on living conditions of the occupiers of the first floor flats above 96 and 100 [site address] with particular regard to outlook and light. It would therefore conflict with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 - 2031 which, amongst other things, seeks that development protects the amenity of existing residents including by avoiding the unacceptable loss of outlook, daylight and sunlight.

I note that third parties have raised further concerns with regard to the scheme’s impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, given my findings on the main issues, such matters have not proved to be central to my determination of the appeal.

Reference has been made to the scheme’s exemption from [name] (BNG) requirements and the good availability of public transport access. However, the issue related to BNG would neither weigh in favour nor against the scheme, and the accessibility to public transport would only weigh in support to a very limited degree in the planning balance of the appeal. I acknowledge that the proposal seeks to make more efficient use of the site through the intensification and expansion of an existing commercial use which would attract some limited weight in support of the development. Nevertheless, the limited positive weight that I attribute to these factors does not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.