Appeal 6000268

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.

I observed on my site visit that the property appeared to have been subdivided. For the avoidance of doubt, I have made this recommendation based on the proposed plans and information submitted with the appeal.

The main issues are 1) whether or not the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupants, 2) whether or not, having regard to development plan policy, the proposed development would result in the loss of a protected dwelling type, and 3) the effect of the proposed development on highway safety with regard to parking provision.

The appeal dwelling is a two-storey end of terrace property situated on [address], a street consisting of other similar properties in a residential setting.

The proposal results in the creation of two self-contained dwellings. The plans indicate that bedroom 3 of proposed dwelling 60A would be situated directly above the living/dining/kitchen area of proposed dwelling 60B.

There is a difference in nature between living spaces and bedrooms, where the former are generally communal spaces used for socialisation, while the latter are primarily places for privacy and sleep. Policy 9 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) (‘the HLP’) states that the living areas of new properties should not abut bedrooms of adjoining properties. The policy does not indicate that this requirement should only apply to houses located next to each other, and I consider that the policy can also reasonably apply to properties which abut vertically and horizontally.

In joined residential properties, it is not uncommon and, in some respects, generally accepted that there will be an element of audibility in relation to the activities of each unit. This can, however, be mitigated in ensuring like rooms abut each other and that the more intensively used rooms in a property are positioned away from the rooms of the neighbour where a reasonable level of peace and quiet can be expected.

In the appeal property it would be reasonable to assume that the living room would be one of, if not the, most intensively used rooms in the property. It would be where occupants would converse, listen to music, watch television and entertain guests. Where these activities would be undertaken adjacent to a neighbour’s bedroom there is a clear likelihood that these activities would be audible and cause disturbance. This would be exacerbated when such activities would occur at times when the occupants of the adjoining property may reasonably expect to sleep undisturbed.

As there is no substantive evidence before me in relation to the noise attenuation performance of the proposed layout, I cannot be certain that adequate mitigation of such noise would be secured, and that the proposed arrangement would not lead to harm to the living conditions of future occupiers.

The Council also highlight concerns regarding outlook and overshadowing to the Dining and Kitchen area to flat 60A due to the presence of the existing two storey rear extension. The two-storey rear extension is existing and therefore the relationship between the ground floor habitable room and the extension is established. 60A possesses a generous rear garden which the living room faces upon providing a pleasant outlook. [name] note there may be a reduction of light received at certain parts of the day, I do not consider this would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupants on this basis.

I note that the Council highlight conflict with Policy 9 iii as part of their first refusal reason which requires the new family unit to be preferably on the ground floor with direct access to private, good quality, usable amenity space. As the proposals are in a ‘maisonette’ style the three-bedroom unit would utilize the ground floor in line with this policy. In addition, both units are served by private amenity space to the rear which the Council consider to be of satisfactory size in the officer’s report. As a result, I consider the proposals to accord with the development plan in this respect.

Turning to the proposed porch, the Council raise concerns regarding its ability to be used by the occupants of both flats in a safe manner. [name] acknowledge that the porch is modest in size it is unlikely to be used concurrently by both flats very frequently and due to both flats possessing respective hallways, occupants would be able to safely wait while other occupants were using the front door. As a result, I consider the proposals to comply with Policy 9 part v of the HLP in this respect.

However, having regard to all of my reasoning above, I conclude overall that the proposal would fail to provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to the standard of accommodation. It would be contrary to [name] 7 and 9 and London Plan (2021) (the LP) Policy D6, which together and among other factors state that developments should provide comfortable and functional layouts, that living areas should not abut bedrooms and that developments should not result in unacceptable noise and disturbance.

Policy 9 of the HLP states that subdivisions of existing residential properties will be supported where it can be demonstrated that the existing house being subdivided has no less than [address] metres of original floor space, and the subdivision would provide a minimum of one family unit of three or more bedrooms.

[name] acknowledge that the original dwelling house possessed a floor area of [address] metres the extension approved and now erected under P1306.17 has increased the floor area to [address] metres. In addition, the proposals include the creation of a three-bedroom flat in line with the policy requirement. As a result, the proposals would comply with Policy 9 of the HLP in this respect.

The Council’s evidence states that the original dwelling had a floor space of approximately 86 sqm. Therefore, although the property has subsequently been extended, the policy explicitly relates to the ‘original’ floor space and as such the proposed development would be contrary to this element of the policy.

The development would provide a ‘family unit’ as is required which would occupy part of the ground floor which would comply with one of the aims of the policy.

The proposed development would therefore result in the loss of a smaller dwelling, that being identified as a unit with the original floorspace being below 120sqm. It would also involve the provision of a ‘family unit’ which would not be located on the ground floor. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy 9 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) as set out above.

The Council’s local parking standards outlines that one parking space should be provided for a three-bedroom property and 0.75 spaces should be provided for a two-bedroom property. The proposal satisfies these requirements and therefore complies with the standards.

At the time of my visit the area appeared moderately busy. Cars were parked on many of the driveways as well as on the street. I also observed that there were public parking bays on [address] opposite the appeal site which were generally unoccupied. Although my observations were a snapshot in time, I have little evidence to suggest they represent an atypical scenario. Overall, the area did not appear to be experiencing any significant degree of parking stress.

No specific travel plan has been provided for the site nor the wider area. That said, the site is in a reasonably accessible location with bus stops close by. Despite there being no parking controls in the immediate area, my observations above suggest there is not currently a high level of demand that would necessitate this.

For the reasons set out, the proposal would not result in harm to highway safety, with specific regard to parking provision. It would accord with Policies 9 and 24 of the HLP and Policies T4 and T6.1 of the LP. In respect of this issue, these policies require appropriate provision to be made for off street parking in development proposals.

The proposal would result in a net increase of one dwelling. This would be a minor increase in the Council’s overall housing number. The site is also in a location which hosts a range of services and key facilities. Upon completion and subsequent occupation, future occupiers would also provide economic benefits to the local area once the development would be complete through their use of local shops and services. The incorporation of sustainable transport modes such as cycling as part of the scheme is noted. These benefits are factors that weigh to a modest degree in the scheme’s favour.

I have nevertheless identified that it would conflict with the development plan policy designed to ensure that certain dwellings are protected from conversion and that development of residential properties provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. This policy is consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in terms of ensuring housing of an identified need is catered for, and that developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. This alignment increases the weight given to the policy conflict. Therefore, the conflict with this policy results in the development conflicting with the development plan when taken as a whole.

Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework requires that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, developments should be granted planning permission 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.

This applies to applications involving the provision of housing in situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It therefore follows that paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged.

In terms of the proposed development, the starting point is therefore that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In this case the adverse impacts of the proposal in terms of the harm to the housing mix and failure to provide acceptable living conditions, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal does not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development given by paragraph 11 of the Framework.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The outcome of the Framework paragraph 11 d) process above indicates that the decision should be taken in accordance with the development plan.

The proposed development would result in a minor increase in the Council’s overall housing number and would also bring a small number of additional residents to the area who would contribute to the local economy. When combined with the Council being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, collectively, I give these matters significant weight in favour of the proposed development.

However, the harm that would be caused to the housing mix and the failure to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, attracts greater significant weight that outweighs the benefits associated with the proposed development.

The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan and there are no identified other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict.

For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude 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.