Appeal 6000272

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to amenity space, light, outlook, privacy, disturbance and access.

The appeal site lies within a mixed-use built-up area, largely consisting of commercial and retail units to ground and lower floors with dwellings above. It comprises a mid-terraced building in retail and office use which is three storeys at the front with a two storey section above a basement to the rear. There is a narrow gap between the rear projection and the large adjacent extended building at [address] (No 60). The area behind the building is hardsurfaced and used for vehicle parking, accessed via a small rear lane onto [address].

The proposal is to convert the vacant rear offices into a maisonette, with the bedroom on the ground floor and the living space above. The proposed bedroom would contain a large bay window relatively close to the extension at No 60. Given the size of the openings, their position partially above the rear projection at No 60 and some sky views, there would be sufficient light to this room. Nevertheless, the outlook would be dominated by the rear walls and roofs of the extended commercial buildings to the south, creating an unacceptable sense of enclosure to future occupiers when using the only bedroom in the property.

There is a rear door to the retail unit which could be frequently used by staff and delivery personnel to access this premises. Due to the basement underneath, the window openings to the proposed bedroom are significantly above the adjacent ground outside, though there would be limited views into this room from the steps linking the properties to the rear parking area. The appellant is willing to accept a condition requiring obscure glazing to the lower panes, ensuring that there would be sufficient privacy for future residents when occupying the bedroom.

However, due to the narrow gap between the windows and the boundary, those using the rear access to the retail unit would have to pass close to the bedroom openings. Such comings and goings could occur at any time causing potential for undue noise and disturbance to future occupiers when using the only bedroom in the proposed residential unit.

The proposed private amenity space would be located to the rear of the retail unit, between the two storey projection containing the proposed dwelling and the large rear extension at No 60. The rear windows of the retail unit have been permanently boarded up so this outdoor space would not be overlooked by occupiers of the retail premises. Nevertheless, the high surrounding walls and the narrow width of the proposed outside area would create a very enclosed, overshadowed, poor quality external amenity space which would fail to meet the needs of future residents.

The Council raises concerns that the proposed ground floor access to the unit via a narrow, unlit rear lane and rear courtyard with low footfall and limited natural surveillance would not be safe nor secure. Further, it states that this access could be blocked by delivery and other vehicles parked in the courtyard. However, the new dwelling would also be accessed via the shared entrance onto the busy, well-lit [address], with interior stairs leading to another entrance door on the first floor. This would provide safe, secure and convenient access for future occupiers of the proposed maisonette.

Therefore, whilst the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers in terms of light, privacy and access, they would have unacceptable outlook and amenity space provision and be subject to undue disturbance. This would be contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (London Plan) and Policies 7, 9, 10, 26 and 34 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 (LP). Together, these require developments to be of a high quality design, providing good quality, usable amenity space and protecting the amenity of future residents, including in relation to outlook, noise and disturbance, amongst other things.

The Council accepts that it cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Its position is that it has a 3.4 year housing land supply. Further, the [name] result for 2023 confirms delivery at 61% over the past three years, substantially below the requirement in the Framework. As there is a shortfall in housing provision, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged.

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework confirms that in such circumstances, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places.

The Framework seeks to boost housing supply and highlights the important contribution small sites can make. The proposal would make a modest contribution of one home to the supply of housing, making use of vacant floorspace in an urban town centre location with good access to services and public transport. It would contribute towards Havering’s housing supply, making a modest difference to addressing the shortfall, and therefore I attribute moderate weight to this benefit.

In contrast, the proposed scheme would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers. This would conflict with the Framework where it requires developments to provide a high standard of amenity for future users. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policies 7, 9, 10, 26 and 34 of the LP. Indeed, the adverse impact of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.