Appeal 6000308

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been amended to omit wording that is not a description of development.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to the provision of outdoor amenity space and outlook; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety with regard to car parking provision.

The appeal site relates to a parcel of land to the rear of 2- [site address] (No’s 2-6b) in Romford. The surrounding area is characterised by detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings.

The proposed garden areas would be situated to the side and front of the proposed dwellings. The Council raise concerns associated with their ‘unacceptably small’ size. However, the evidence before me indicates that the garden areas would significantly exceed the standards set out in Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) (LP). As such, the proposed garden areas are of an acceptable size.

The first-floor rear bedroom windows of No’s 2-6b would overlook the proposed garden areas at relatively short distances. Overlooking to the proposed garden of the property to the rear of No. 2 and 4 would be exacerbated given the proximity of the garden area to the shared boundary. The first-floor rear windows at [address] (No.133) would also overlook the proposed garden area adjacent to its rear boundary at a relatively short distance.

Although the separation distances between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties may exceed 20 metres, the separation distances between neighbouring properties and the proposed garden areas would be less. Overall, the proposed garden areas would be overlooked by neighbouring properties, resulting in a lack of privacy for future occupiers, which would be harmful to their living conditions.

Turning to outlook, both kitchen/living areas would be multi aspect. Although the front elevation windows and glass patio doors would face onto boundary treatments, this would be from a distance. The outlook from these openings would be of garden areas and the areas to the front of the properties. Although smaller secondary windows serving the main living areas would face onto the rear boundary treatment at a short distance, this would not result in harm given the other openings would provide acceptable outlook.

The proposed bedrooms of both properties would be served by several rooflights. These rooflights would however only offer a limited view of the sky and would not provide what I consider to be a reasonable outlook.

Overall, the proposed garden areas would be overlooked by neighbouring properties and the proposed bedrooms would fail to provide an acceptable outlook. This would be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers. Overall, the scheme would be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP and Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (HLP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to protect the amenity of future residents.

The proposed dwellings would be evident from the rear windows and gardens of No’s 2-6b. However, the proposed dwellings would be single storey (with accommodation in the roof) and positioned towards the rear of their plots. Their relatively small size, coupled with the separation distances between them and the host properties, would ensure that the proposed dwellings would not dominate the outlook from the rear windows or gardens of No's 2-6b. Furthermore, the boundary treatments between the host properties and the proposed dwellings would further minimise views from the ground floor rear windows and gardens of No’s 2-6b.

The relatively small scale of the proposed dwellings, coupled with separation distances and boundary treatments would also ensure that the proposed dwellings would not dominate the outlook from the rear windows or garden area of No.133.

Concerns are raised in the case officer report regarding the loss of outlook at No. 6b, as a result of the removal of a window serving the kitchen/living area to facilitate access to the proposed dwellings. This room would however still be served by large glass patio doors, which would provide an acceptable outlook to the garden area.

I find therefore, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with regard to outlook. As such, there would be no conflict with Policies D3 and D6 of the LP and Policies 7 and 10 of the HLP in this regard.

I do not find any conflict with Policy 26 of the HLP in this regard. This policy seeks to ensure that developments proposals are of a high architectural quality and design, amongst other things. I also find no conflict with Policy D4 of the LP in this regard. This policy sets out the processes and actions, such as visual modelling assessments, to ensure development delivers good design.

The evidence before me outlines how the piece of land where the proposed dwellings would be situated was approved as part of the gardens to No’s 2-6b under a previous planning application (Ref:P1625.22). Although already separated, the scheme would formalise this layout. The resultant garden sizes of the existing dwellings would however be largely reflective of the terraced properties to the north along [address]. Whilst the gardens would be shorter in length than those to the east, these gardens serve semi-detached and detached properties. Given the mix of plot sizes in the area, I consider the reduced garden sizes at No’s 2-6b to be acceptable.

Although there is some variation in plot size in the surrounding area, generally properties face the highway and are served by long narrow rear gardens. To contrast, the proposed dwellings would be sited to the rear of existing properties and accessed via paths to the side of No.2 and 6b. The dwellings would be sat towards the rear of their plots, with gardens to the front and sides of the dwellings. This layout would contrast with the prevailing pattern of development and therefore fail to respect the character of the area.

Although there is a four-bay garage at the plot to the rear of the site, this is ancillary to the main dwellings and not an independent property sat on its own plot. It is therefore not directly comparable to the proposed dwellings. My attention is drawn to the block of flats along [address] (Ref: P1203.11). This development sits to the rear of existing dwellings and represents higher density development. However, it is situated close to a busy nodal junction and comprises flattened development. It is therefore not read in the same context as the appeal scheme. I have afforded reference to these developments limited weight in favour of the appeal.

Turning to the design of the proposed dwellings, they would be semi-detached and single storey with a hipped roof and crown top. Small front projections and front porches are proposed. Whilst most properties in the immediate surrounding area are two storeys, there are examples of bungalows in the wider surrounding area along [address]. Furthermore, there is variation in architectural styles and roof forms. Given this, notwithstanding my concerns regarding the siting and layout of the proposed properties, the design is considered acceptable and in keeping with surrounding development.

The ground floor of No.6B would be reduced in width and an overhang would be used to facilitate pedestrian access to the proposed dwellings. Although this arrangement would be somewhat unusual, given the variation in design in the area, it would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, overall, the reduction in width would be relatively small. The impact on the street scene would therefore be negligible. This element of the scheme would be acceptable in this regard.

Overall, the proposed changes to the existing dwellings would be acceptable and in keeping with surrounding development. In isolation, the design of the proposed dwellings would also be acceptable. However, the siting and layout of the proposed dwellings would unacceptably contrast with surrounding development. As such, the scheme would fail to reflect or complement the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the HLP and Policy D3 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that responds to the character of an area.

I do not find any conflict with Policy D4 of the LP in this regard.

The site is situated within a [name] (CPZ) in operation from 8.30am-6.30pm Monday to Friday. Some properties along [address], including No’s 2-6b, have driveways. The presence of these driveways reduces the amount of space available for on-street parking. On my site visit I noted that yellow lines demarked the edge of the carriageway, and white lines demarked parking bays. There was evidence of moderate parking stress, with few parking spaces available. I am aware that this represents a snapshot in time but given the residential nature of the area, I have no reason to believe that what I saw is not representative. It is also likely that there would be an increased parking demand in the evenings and at weekends when the CPZ is not in operation.

Policy 24 of the HLP sets out a minimum requirement of one space, to serve the two dwellings. The proposed scheme would however not provide any parking. It would therefore likely lead to an increased demand for on-street car parking spaces. This increased demand, coupled with the parking stress in the area, would increase the likelihood of residents and visitors parking close to road junctions and may also reduce the number of places that pedestrians can cross the road with good intervisibility between pedestrians and road users, thereby increasing the likelihood of collisions. This would harm highway safety.

There is no parking survey before me to demonstrate that the surrounding area could accommodate any increased demand for parking. There is also no mechanism to prevent future occupiers applying for residents parking permits. I am therefore not satisfied that the CPZ would adequately manage any increased parking demand.

The site also has a public transport accessibility level score (PTAL) of 1b, meaning it has low public transport accessibility. The evidence before me outlines how the site is situated a 4-minute walk away from bus stops and a 16-minute walk away from [name] train station. However, I do not have details of the frequency or routes of bus or trains services from these facilities. I cannot therefore be sure if this would provide a realistic alternative to travel by car, thereby reducing the need for future occupiers to own a car.

Various services and facilities such as convenience stores, cafes, and a pharmacy are provided along Ardleigh Green Road which is a 9-minute walk from the site. However, it is unlikely that this parade of shops would meet the day-to-day needs of future occupiers. It is therefore likely that future occupiers would own a car, increasing the demand for on street parking, and potentially harming highway safety.

Cycle parking would be provided, however given the relatively limited services nearby, I am not satisfied that this would sufficiently minimise the need for travel by car, and therefore the need for parking.

To conclude, the development would not provide any on-site parking and would likely result in increased parking demand, unacceptably harming highway safety. The scheme would be contrary to Policy 24 which seeks to ensure that developments provide the minimum amount of car parking, without undue risk of overspill parking onto the surrounding street.

Although planning policy broadly seeks to promote car free development in certain circumstances, and encourage sustainable transport, Policy 24 of the HLP clearly sets out the minimum requirements in areas with a low PTAL score.

I do not find any conflict with Policy 26, which relates to urban design, in this regard.

Concerns are raised by the Council in its case officer report regarding the loss of light and ventilation at No.6b, as a result of the proposed removal of a window. It raises concerns regarding unacceptable access arrangements, before later stating that the proposed access would be acceptable. It also references the visual impact to properties along [address]. None of these matters are however cited in the refusal reasons. Nonetheless, as can be seen from my findings above, these issues would not be determinative. I have therefore not considered them further.

The site is not situated within a Conservation Area or within the vicinity of a listed building. It is also not subject to any specific protective policy or land use designation within the HLP and is situated within flood zone 1. The dwellings may also meet internal and external space standards set out in the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. These are however neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

The evidence before me outlines how the Council can only demonstrate a 3.4-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This is a reasonable shortfall. In these circumstances paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

There is nothing before me to suggest that there are any policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance that provide a strong reason for refusing the development under paragraph 11d)(i). Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11d(ii) applies such that planning permission should be granted 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.

The scheme would provide housing in a location which is somewhat close to several public transport services and a limited range of local amenities. It would make efficient use of land and deliver housing on a smaller site. All hard surfaces may be permeable and visually pleasing, and the scheme may incorporate sustainable construction principles and promote sustainability through a range of measures such as sustainable urban drainage. The properties may meet building regulations regarding accessibility and adaptability, ensure refuse storage facilities and promote security through the use of lighting. The scheme may also provide biodiversity net gain. However, given the relatively small scale of development I attribute these benefits limited weight.

Accordingly, I find that the adverse impacts arising from the development in terms of its effect on the living conditions of future occupiers, character and appearance of the area and highway safety would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited weight attributed to the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in these circumstances.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.