Appeal 6000324

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.

The main issues are: • whether or not the proposed development would deliver acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outlook, noise and disturbance and floor to ceiling heights; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to privacy; and • whether or not adequate private outdoor amenity space would be provided for existing and future occupiers.

The proposed apartment building would be directly adjacent to the boundary wall surrounding the site to its western elevation, which at ground floor level includes windows serving Flat 1. These windows would face directly onto the tall solid boundary wall which would dominate views due to the proposed building’s proximity to the boundary. This visual dominance would create an uninviting outlook from these windows to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers.

The proposed windows on the eastern elevation would serve a kitchen/lounge and bedroom and would be directly adjacent to the proposed car parking. Given the proximity and arrangement of spaces, the comings and goings from vehicles and users would generate noise and light disturbance from the headlights to the extent that it would not provide an attractive living environment. While the layout of the proposal would allow for secure and convenient parking, this does not negate the requirement for an acceptable standard of living conditions for the future occupiers.

The appellant refers to the provisions of the National Design Guide. However, the example cited is for terraced properties with vehicles parked in a parallel arrangement, in contrast to the bay parking layout proposed in this appeal scheme. The example is not therefore directly comparable and does not alter my above findings. While it is suggested that a condition could be imposed requiring the car parking spaces adjacent to the flats to be allocated to the corresponding occupiers, there is no clear evidence that it would be reasonable for two one-bed flats to be allocated four spaces. It is also indicated that an area of soft landscaping could be incorporated to separate the car parking from the flats. However, this is not what is shown on the submitted plans, and it would not be appropriate to comment on a scheme I have not seen.

The appellant’s submissions include a plan showing that the proposed flats would have a floor to ceiling height of 2.5 metres for at least 75% of the gross internal floor area, in accordance with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). As a result, the internal accommodation would be of a high quality, especially in terms of daylight penetration, ventilation and cooling, and a sense of space.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outlook, and noise and disturbance. It would conflict with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) (HLP) which amongst other things requires residential development on backland sites to be of a high design quality that provides an attractive living environment for new residents. Living conditions of the occupiers of No 2

The garden of No 2 lies to the rear of the appeal site. There would be three first-floor windows fronting the garden with limited set back from the shared boundary that would be obscure glazed. As a result, future occupiers of the appeal development would be unable to gain views into the garden of No.2 sufficiently safeguarding the privacy of those using the garden. Furthermore, given the urban environment, any movement or light spill from these windows would not result in a perception of overlooking that would undermine the level of privacy that could reasonably be expected in a private garden.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2, with regard to privacy. The proposal would be in accordance with Policies 7 and 10 of the HLP which include a requirement for residential development on backland sites to not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of existing occupants, including unacceptable overlooking and levels of noise and disturbance.

The Council also refer to the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) on the decision notice, however as the appeal scheme relates to a new building it has not been determinative in this case.

Located proximate to the access road, car parking area and the existing flats, the proposed outdoor amenity space would be in a similar location to the existing amenity space, which is subject to overlooking from the existing flats and vehicles, and noise and disturbance from the comings and goings of vehicles. There is no substantiated evidence that the pattern of activity would be substantially different to the existing situation. Moreover, the existing amenity area is almost entirely enclosed by hedging and a brick wall. As a result, the quality of the amenity space of the appeal scheme for existing occupiers would not be significantly diminished and would be acceptable for future occupiers.

To conclude, the proposed development would provide adequate amenity space for current and future occupiers. It would therefore accord with Policies 7 and 10 of the HLP, insofar as they require backland development to provide adequate amenity space for existing and new dwellings and not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of existing and new occupants.

It is not disputed that the Council are currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, which the Council indicates stands at 3.4 years. There is also a shortfall in delivery based on the most recent housing delivery test results. It therefore follows that paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is applicable.

The proposal would contribute two dwellings to the supply of housing in an accessible location on a brownfield site. Taking account of the scale of the proposal, although there is considerable support for new housing, these social benefits attract moderate positive weight. There would also be economic benefits arising from expenditure by future residents, albeit there is limited guarantee of the extent that this would be directed to local businesses or services and so is of limited positive weight.

There would be no provision for affordable housing, and the proposal would not secure a well-designed place for the reasons explained under the main issues. The identified conflict with the development plan is given significant negative weight. There are no objections to the proposal. However, this is a neutral factor and does not preclude a full and proper assessment of the planning merits of the case.

The proposal would result in benefits, but it would also cause harm. Weighing the two up is a matter of planning judgement. In this case the adverse impacts of the proposal in terms of the harm to the living conditions of future occupiers, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole and in having particular regard to the key policies listed in Framework Footnote 9. The proposal does not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development given by paragraph 11 d) of the Framework.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate the the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. 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.