Appeal 6000347

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.

An amended scheme regarding the rear fenestration has been submitted as part of this appeal. The procedural guide for planning appeals advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. It is important that what is considered at appeal is essentially the same as was considered by the local planning authority and interested parties at the application stage. For the avoidance of doubt, I have made my recommendation based on the original plans, namely [address] FA_506.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) highway safety with specific regard to on and off-street parking.

The appeal site occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of [site address] and [address], within a well-established residential area. [address] [name] lies at the end of the street. Dwellings are predominantly two-storey semi-detached and terraced of similar architectural form, featuring double front gables and symmetrical fenestration with occasional variations in detailing and finishes. Properties are uniformly set back behind modest front gardens, many adapted for off-street parking, which maintains a coherent building line. Regular plot widths and consistent spacing create a strong sense of rhythm along the street. This ordered arrangement, combined with the consistent scale and massing of dwellings, contributes positively to a harmonious and locally distinctive streetscape.

The appeal scheme would introduce a markedly narrower dwelling incorporating a double front-facing gable. Although this feature seeks to reference existing architecture, its narrow proportions would appear incongruous within the established context, disrupting the visual consistency of the street. By attaching a new dwelling to the existing property, the scheme would create an unbalanced pair of semi-detached dwellings, undermining the strong sense of symmetry that characterises the immediate area.

It wouldn’t appear as a side extension, which itself would typically be designed as a subservient addition, sitting back from the principal elevation and stepped down from the roof height to maintain hierarchy and visual coherence. It would instead would be read as a full-scale independent unit, emphasising its discordance. Consequently, the proposal would present a disproportionate scale and form.

The proposal would erode the established building line, particularly in relation to dwellings to the rear fronting [address], which the existing property currently respects. The introduction of a side-facing entrance would add a design feature incongruous with the prevailing pattern of development. Moreover, and although no elevational plans have been submitted, the proposed refuse store, positioned forward of the building line, would appear as a prominent and visually intrusive element. Its scale and siting would add to visual clutter, thereby exacerbating the harm to the street scene.

For these reasons, the proposed dwelling would be an incompatible addition that would fail to integrate acceptably with its surroundings. It would therefore cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan, the Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (2021) (SDS) and Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (2021) (LP). These, amongst other things, require development to deliver high-quality design that responds positively to local character, reinforces distinctive qualities and identity, and complements the established street scene.

During a lunchtime site visit I observed that on-street parking is prevalent in the area, which likely intensifies during peak periods and school pick up and drop off times. Double yellow lines outside the appeal site further restrict parking opportunities. Whilst the proposal indicates the provision of two parking spaces to the rear of the plot, the existing dropped kerb does not align with the intended access point, which is currently obstructed by a lamppost.

Even if the spaces were relocated within the plot, it is unclear whether vehicles could turn within the site to exit in a forward gear. In any event, visibility for drivers would be severely restricted by the height and position of solid boundary fencing and parked vehicles. This lack of adequate visibility would materially increase the risk of conflict with pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users.

Conversely, if vehicles were required to reverse into or out of the site, they would temporarily obstruct the carriageway, impeding traffic flow. The risk would be heightened by the constrained nature of the local highway network and existing parking pressures. Furthermore, creating this access would reduce the availability of on-street parking, a situation exacerbated by the loss of a space to the front of the proposed dwelling, which would be replaced by a refuse store. The limited size of the remaining car park space for the existing dwelling would struggle to accommodate any sizeable vehicle that would not hamper or overhang the pedestrian footway.

Consequently, the proposal would be harmful to the safe use of the highway. As such, it would be contrary to Policy T4 of the SDS and Policy 23 of the LP, which, amongst other things, require new development to have regard for highway safety. The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) states that planning permission should be refused if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Paragraph 11 of the Framework

The Council cannot currently demonstrate the supply of housing sites as required by the Framework. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d)(ii) indicates that, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, 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.

In this case, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and highway safety. These would be significant and enduring, and I therefore afford them substantial weight. The benefits of the scheme, including the addition of one unit and associated economic activity during construction and occupation, would be limited in scale and largely temporary. While the shortfall in housing supply is acknowledged and attracts moderate weight, the contribution of one dwelling would make only a minimal difference to addressing that deficit.

Although the appeal site occupies a sustainable location, the proposal would not deliver affordable housing and would result in the identified harms. When assessed against the Framework as a whole, these adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the development. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Garden land within built-up areas does not fall within the definition of previously developed land for the purposes of the Framework. The decisions cited by the appellant relate to completely different schemes, including a change of use and an outline self-build scheme. They were determined under different development plan policies in other local planning authority areas and decided accordingly for different reasons. I am not led to recommending allowing the appeal in their light.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, 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.