Appeal 6000263

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs has been made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Havering and is the subject of a separate

Revised plans were submitted with the appeal. These provide a section drawing of the proposed dwelling indicating the internal room heights as well as show the provision of a single parking space with associated turning space to show that a single vehicle could enter and exit in a forward gear. The Council has provided comments on the revised plans. I am satisfied that the revised plans are not substantially different to what was originally considered by the Council and other interested parties. Therefore, I have based my assessment on the revised plans submitted.

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 highway safety.

The appeal site is located at the end of [address], a cul-de-sac within a predominantly residential area. It comprises an irregularly shaped parcel of land positioned adjacent to and in front of [address] (No. 22), extending approximately halfway across the width of the road. The surrounding dwellings are generally two-storey terraced properties featuring front two storey gables and hipped roofs. While some properties include ground-floor additions such as porches, these vary in design and scale. Within the wider area, the housing stock remains largely consistent, with two-storey terraced dwellings of similar design, except for those on [address] to the rear of the site, which incorporate side-gabled roofs but maintain a two-storey form. No. 22 differs from the prevailing pattern because it would be a detached dwelling; however, it respects the established building line and scale, with properties typically set back behind driveways.

Flat-roofed outbuildings within rear gardens are common and, due to the layout of development, are visible from the street. For example, outbuildings within the gardens of properties on [address] can be seen from [address]. However, these are generally limited in scale, viewed alongside the associated dwellings and as such their effect on the pattern of development is limited. Whilst there is some limited variation in the detailed design of the nearby houses, overall, the consistency in scale, form and siting of the surrounding dwellings establishes a clear pattern of uniform development that contributes positively to the suburban character of the area.

The appeal site is generally bound by fencing at the end of [address] and another property on [address] also has a gated fenced off access extending around half the width of [address]. The gardens in the area are typically located to the rear of properties and as such, this area of land at the end of the road next to No. 22 is unusual in this context. However, given the lack of built form within it and the low-level scale of the fencing that bounds it, the appearance of the site, whilst overgrown at the time of my site visit, is not necessarily out of character with the suburban character of the area. Furthermore, it does not detract from the prominent features that contribute to the pattern of development, such as the scale, form and siting of the surrounding dwellings.

The proposed development comprises a single storey dwelling with a flat roof, positioned next to No. 22. The property would have an irregular ‘L’-shaped footprint that would extend beyond the front elevation of No. 22, with vehicular access to be provided via a driveway at the end of [address]. Due to its distinct appearance and separate access, the building would be perceived as a separate dwelling within the street scene.

When assessed against the established building line, as well as the prevailing scale and form of properties within [address] and the surrounding roads, the proposal would appear incongruous, disrupting the existing building line. A single storey dwelling in this location would not reflect the uniform pattern of development in the area.

Although some nearby outbuildings and extensions incorporate flat roofs, these are typically modest in scale and subordinate to their host properties. In contrast, the proposed dwelling due to its scale and form would be viewed as a standalone structure, with its flat roof highly visible at the end of the street. This would create a stark contrast with the hipped roofs of dwellings on [address] and [address] and the side-gabled roofs of houses on [address]. The low-level blocky form would share more in appearance with the surrounding outbuildings than the houses but due to its scale and location it would be viewed as a separate dwelling, and its discordant appearance would be incongruous in the street scene.

The garden and internal room sizes of the proposed dwelling would generally accord with the [name] and whilst the scheme would be built close to the surrounding boundaries, the terraced development nearby is comparatively dense and, in isolation, the scheme would not appear cramped within the plot. However, the dwelling’s position at the end of the road and its scale and form, combined with its forward projection beyond No. 22 and neighbouring properties, would render it prominent within the street scene. Despite its proximity to No. 22, the form and siting would result in an isolated appearance and as such, whilst it would not appear cramped within the plot, the form and scale of the proposal would appear out of character in the street scene.

Although the existing fencing around the site may be in disrepair, for the reasons given above, the current appearance of the appeal site does not appear discordant. Whereas the irregular layout of the proposal, when compared to the uniform arrangement of nearby houses, would further accentuate its discordant design. The replacement of this fencing with the development as designed would not lead to an enhancement to the character or appearance of the area. There is variety in the choice of materials locally and the suggested materials for the proposed dwelling would not necessarily appear out of character in this context however, this would not overcome the above concerns with the scale, form and siting of the proposed dwelling.

For the above reasons, the development would disrupt the established pattern of development and would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (LP). These policies state, amongst other matters, that developments involving the subdivision of plots and garden development will not be supported unless it can be robustly demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area and that the proposed plot sizes are consistent with the size, setting and arrangement of properties in the surrounding area and be of high design quality which the development would not.

The appeal site is within an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 2. Local Plan Policy 24 indicates that the maximum standards in the London Plan apply in such areas. Policy T6.1 of the London Plan stipulates that new residential development should not exceed the maximum parking provision of 0.75 spaces for dwellings with 1-2 bedrooms.

Taking into consideration the availability of alternative transport solutions nearby, the options for sustainable travel are not of the highest order. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would own at least one car. However, the revised plans show that whilst two vehicles had been shown on the submitted plans, in reality only a single car could have been parked on the driveway and be able to enter and exit in a forward gear. Consequently, the proposal would not exceed the maximum car parking provision and would support the aim of the London Plan to reduce car use.

I do not have technical evidence concerning the number of vehicular or pedestrian movements on the road, however, given that the site is on a cul-de-sac they are likely to be limited. Taking into consideration the revised plans, it is evident that a vehicle could enter the site in a forward gear and then turn around within it and exit in a forward gear. Consequently, drivers would have forward visibility of any oncoming vehicles or pedestrians. Whilst the proposed driveway would be next to a tall timber fence which may partly screen driver sightlines, the road layout and ability to manoeuvre in a forward gear mean the proposed development would provide adequate access and egress arrangements and would not lead to hazardous manoeuvring that would lead to conflict between road users. Whilst this would be subject to approval for a dropped kerb, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Accordingly, it would accord with Policies 10, 23 and 24 of the LP as well as Policies T4 and T6.1 of the London Plan. These expect developments, amongst other matters, to ensure safe and efficient use of the highway and demonstrate that adverse impacts on the transport network are avoided, or where necessary, mitigated.

The Council acknowledges that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites given that the LP was adopted in the absence of a 5-year land supply and as the [name] result for 2023 was 61%. In these circumstances paragraph 11dii) 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 two-bedroom 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 and the identified need for properties of this size, I attribute moderate weight to the proposal’s contribution to addressing this shortfall and its contribution towards significantly boosting the supply of housing, widening opportunities for home ownership and delivering a 2-bedroom property to meet identified local need on under-utilised land.

The scheme is proposed to deliver a self-build house. The benefits of custom or self-build housing are recognised by the Planning Practice Guidance finding that it helps to diversify the housing market and increase customer choice. The Framework also states that local planning authorities should seek opportunities, through policies and decisions, to support small sites to come forward for community-led development for housing and self-build and custom-build housing.

However, a section 106 obligation is likely to be the most appropriate method to secure matters relating to the ownership of the self-build house for a period of three years as well as bind the requirement on successors in title should the property be sold in the future. Without such a mechanism in place I am not convinced the scheme would be able to secure these and thus this matter weighs neither for nor against the development. Even if I were to give weight to the self-build element of the proposal, given the limited scale of this, I would attribute limited weight to it in favour of the scheme.

There would be economic benefits during and after construction and the occupiers would contribute towards the social fabric of the area. The scheme would provide new soft landscaping securing new biodiversity. Given the limited scale of the proposal, I attribute limited weight to these benefits.

The appellant states that the site is previously developed land, however what I saw on site was land overgrown with weeds with no built form on it. The planning history for the site does not indicate that any buildings have been granted permission to be erected. Annex 2 of the Framework describes previously developed land, as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). Additionally, it sets out that previously developed land excludes land in built-up-areas such as residential gardens. Taking into account the site’s characteristics and the information before me, it is not evident that the site is previously developed land. Even if the site was considered to be previously developed land, given the identified concerns with the effect the development would have on the character and appearance of the area, the development of this site would not use suitable brownfield land within a settlement for a home.

Whilst the proposal would not harm highway safety, the lack of harm in this regard weighs neither for nor against the development.

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, 10 and 26 of the LP state, amongst other matters, that developments involving the subdivision of plots and garden development will not be supported unless it can be robustly demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area and that the proposed plot sizes are consistent with the size, setting and arrangement of properties in the surrounding area and be of high design quality. These policies are generally consistent with paragraph 135b) 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. Taking into consideration the above matters, the scheme would conflict with the Framework in this regard, 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 when 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.

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