Appeal 6000287

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. In addition, the above address reflects the appeal form and as the site is referred to in appeal decisions 3236695 and 3261862. It is also referred to as such in the appellant’s evidence. It most accurately identifies the site. I have therefore used it.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area; b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No

with particular regard to outlook and light; and c) highway safety with particular regard to parking.

The appeal site comprises a narrow strip of land accommodating a block of two garages to the side of Number [address] (No 3). Itself a semi-detached two storey hipped roof dwelling. The garages, along with the space between them and Nos 3 and [address], represent a comparatively wide gap between the surrounding dwellings. [address] is characterised by rendered and pebble-dashed two-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings arranged in a linear pattern, set back from and facing the road. With the exception of Numbers 1 and 3 which relate more to the type on [address], they have flush frontages with similar bay projections, porch canopies and consistent spacing between groups. These features introduce a familiar even rhythm and a coherence to built form which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

As a detached unit, the proposal would fail to reflect the established pattern of the street’s grain. It would interrupt the even rhythm of the street scene, unacceptably jarring with its consistency. It would maintain a set back from the street, but in having a two storey projecting frontage and a high gable to one side, it would appear contrived and awkward against the prevailing use of shallower hipped roofs and more flush frontages it would be amongst. Notwithstanding there being examples of side gable ends in the street and to the front of Nos 1 and 3. These are across more broad single spanning buildings, and their effect is thus softened. The narrowness of the appeal site results in an equally narrow building. Arranging it over two storeys makes it appear as incongruously squeezed to fit the space.

The proposal would therefore unacceptably undermine the quality of consistency in the terms I have described. Thus, it would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (LP) which seeks high quality design and development proposals that respect, reinforce and complement the local street scene. It would also conflict with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks well designed places and high quality buildings.

The proposed dwelling would project beyond the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties at Nos 3 and 5. While the projection adjacent No 3 would be modest, the proposal would extend more than a marginal distance further rearwards beyond the two-storey rear elevation of No 5. Given the proposed dwellings height, bulk and proximity to the shared boundary, this would have a looming and overbearing effect, resulting in an increased sense of enclosure, adversely affecting the outlook from the rear of No 5 for occupiers of the closest rooms.

While the Havering London Borough Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD) does not explicitly refer to new builds, its underlying principles regarding what constitutes acceptable design in regard to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers provide a useful framework for assessment. The proposal would not breach the ‘45 degree rule’ used to assess whether a proposed extension would unacceptably block light to a neighbouring window. With this in mind, and in the absence of any substantive contradictory evidence, I am not persuaded that any loss of light caused by the proposal, would result in an unacceptable impact on the occupants at No 5.

That said, the above harm to outlook would remain, such that the scheme would be contrary to the aims of Policy 7 of the LP which seeks to ensure amenity and quality of life for existing residents is not adversely impacted.

Since the appeal site does not form part of No 3, it would not lose parking. No 3 benefits from its own off street parking via separate access onto to the road. The provision of a single space in this respect would accord with the requirements of Policy 24 of the LP for a two person dwelling.

The space shown for the proposed dwelling would not appear to meet the minimum depth requirements for such. Consequently, a parked car could overhang the footway. That said, the adjoining side boundary fence to No 5 projects forward of the front boundary of the appeal site, narrowing the pavement at this point. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that any limited overhang of a vehicle would give rise to conflict with pedestrians or materially hinder their safe movement along the footway. The proposal would therefore provide adequate car parking provision and would accord with Policies 23 and 24 of the LP which sets out the minimum parking standards and support development which ensures safe and efficient use of the highway.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites for housing. The Framework requires at paragraph 11d) that policies which are most important for determining the application are regarded as out-of-date (as identified at Footnote 8). In such an instance, paragraph 11d) ii) requires that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would give rise to the above mentioned harms in respect of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbours. These would be significant and enduring and thus worthy of substantial weight since the Framework states that good design is a key aspect of creating better places in which to live. Planning decisions should ensure that developments create places that promote well-being with a high standard of amenity for users. Development that is not well designed should be refused.

The proposal would only deliver one dwelling, making a positive yet very limited contribution to the significant housing undersupply position. The site is situated in a reasonably accessible location with access to some services and facilities within walking distance along pavements, and a bus stop nearby reducing the reliance on the private vehicle. It would provide some social and economic benefits with occupiers of the dwellinghouse supporting existing facilities and services in the local area. All of these effects and benefits would be modest given the scale of the development. For these and the above reasons, I would attach moderate weight to the proposal’s benefits.

It is therefore sufficiently clear that, in this particular case and with regard to the above circumstances, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission for the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would not therefore apply to the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan, and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore 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.