Appeal 6000341

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would make sufficient provision for off-street parking; and, • Whether it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies.

There is a bus stop in front of the appeal site, with the marked bay extending across part of its frontage. There is no dispute between the main parties that this would have to be relocated to allow vehicle access to the proposed development. The appeal site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1B. Policies 7, 23 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan collectively require a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces for larger homes in areas with such low public transport access.

I have considered whether this relocation could be secured by a condition. This was previously discussed between the main parties and the view was that there was scope for the bus-stop to be relocated through a Section 278 agreement, with in-principle support from the highways consultee. However, I have no indication of when these discussions took place, or where the bus stop could be relocated to. Given the presence of existing vehicle accesses to neighbouring properties, a traffic island along part of the site frontage and another bus stop on the opposite side of the road near to the site it is not clear where this bus stop could be relocated to. In the absence of that information, a condition would not be sufficiently precise to meet the tests set out in the Framework.

In the absence of any mechanism to secure the moving of the bus stop the development would not be able to provide sufficient off-street parking provision. It would therefore conflict with the collective aims of policies 7, 23 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The Framework further states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate save for certain exceptions.

One exception is where development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, where there is a demonstrable need for the type of development proposed, and where the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

Both the London Plan and the Local Plan were adopted in 2021 and therefore their policies do not reference the concept of grey belt land. Accordingly, I have given greater weight to the Framework in determining whether the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development.

The Framework states that grey belt land includes land that does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

The appeal site is an undeveloped plot which sits between a veterinary surgery and houses. The council’s 2018 Green Belt Evaluation concluded that the site makes a limited contribution to preventing sprawl as it is relatively small and already contained by the veterinary surgery. The Evaluation further found that the site plays a negligible role in preventing the merger of neighbouring towns, and that the veterinary surgery encloses the site and exerts an urbanising influence.

The veterinary surgery comprises a prominent building with a large car park on the far side relative to the appeal site. It is a significant presence in the immediate area, with a totem sign at the site entrance further highlighting it. Beyond this site are open fields, and the size and prominence of the surgery and car park mark a clear edge to the settlement as seen from the street. The proposed development would not significantly change this relationship given the relatively small scale of the development for a single house on a largely enclosed plot.

The site therefore does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes of checking sprawl or preventing neighbouring towns merging. Furthermore, no historic towns have been identified near the site and there is no conflict with this purpose. The development would therefore utilise grey belt land.

The Framework identifies 2 additional purposes of the Green Belt as assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Seen in the wider street scene the surgery and car park would remain as the most prominent feature in the vicinity. Given the degree of enclosure of the site by the existing development to either side the appeal proposal would result in limited encroachment on a visually contained site with negligible effect on the wider countryside. No conflict with the second of these purposes has been identified by the main parties. As the proposal is for a single house on a relatively small site, I see no reason to disagree. The proposed development would not therefore fundamentally undermine those purposes across the area of the plan.

There is a demonstrable need for the proposed development, given the council’s acknowledged housing land and housing delivery shortfalls.

The site is at the edge of the settlement and future occupiers would be likely to be reliant on private transport to some degree. However, despite the low PTAL rating there are bus stops close to the site, albeit that one would have to be moved to accommodate any development on it. It is also next to existing houses so is clearly in no less a sustainable location than those properties. For a single new dwelling the appeal site is in a sustainable location.

The appeal proposal therefore accords with the requirements of the Framework in relation to the development of grey belt land. It would consequently not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The council’s decision notice also identified a lack of affordable housing provision as a further reason for refusal. The appeal proposal is for one house, and it is not clear from the council’s submissions what form any contribution would take. [name] am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, and as the appellant contends that no contribution is required, I have not sought further information on this matter. I note, however, that if I had done so I would also have sought the parties’ views on paragraph 65 of the Framework. This states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas.

The Framework identifies the government objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The council has a 3.4 year supply of deliverable housing sites, and the most recent [name] figures show a 61% delivery rate. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged.

The appeal proposal would create one new dwelling. Given the shortfall both in housing delivery and available sites, this attracts moderate weight in the overall balance. The appeal site is available, undeveloped and relatively small in size, so any development could be delivered quickly.

Set against this is the failure of the appeal proposal to secure vehicle access to, and parking on, the site. There are no marked parking restrictions on this section of [address]. However, the presence of bus stops, a traffic island and the accesses to the surgery and house to either side of the site would all limit parking near the site. The Local Plan requires a minimum level of on-site parking which the proposed development cannot provide. The absence of that parking would result in unacceptable harm that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits the appeal proposal would deliver.

The proposed development therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, to indicate that this decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.