Appeal 6000380

The appeal is dismissed.

I attempted to visit 36 and [address]; however, I was unable to gain entry at the time of the site visit. Notwithstanding this, I was able to carry out an inspection from within the appeal site, which provided an adequate understanding of the potential effects of the proposed development on the surrounding properties. I am therefore satisfied that a further site visit is not necessary and have proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the information available.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 35, 36 and [address] with regard to outlook and privacy; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of proposed [name] with regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site is located to the rear of dwellings on [address] but would be accessed from [address]. The development on [address] is typically two-storey semi-detached or terraced properties that often have two-storey bay windows and are generally rendered in varying colours. These are set behind driveways or gardens and have modestly sized rear gardens. The development on [address] is generally three-storey brick built residential properties set behind landscaped areas. Where there are smaller buildings, these typically follow the same building line as the larger three-storey properties. There is also a group of garage blocks next to the appeal site on [address].

The buildings on both these streets generally address the road from which they take access. The two streets are separated by a path that runs between the two along the rear gardens of the buildings on both roads. The character of the two streets differs, with the smaller-scale development on [address] enclosed by the close siting of the dwellings on it. The development on [address], whilst larger in scale, is more spread out and open which creates a less dense development with areas of landscaping interspersed between the buildings.

The proposed dwellings would be brick built two-storey semi-detached buildings. The scheme would take vehicular access from [address], but the front elevations would face towards the rear gardens of houses on [address].

The established pattern of development for each street scene is divided by the footpath separating the rear gardens of properties on [address] from those on [address]. The appeal site sits within the boundary fencing for the houses on [address] and is viewed as part of the built form on that road. Development on [address] generally addresses that street directly and is distinct from the built form associated with [address]. However due to the development layout the built form on [address] is visible from [address] and vice versa.

[address], views of the proposed houses would be limited to glimpses through the gap between 36 and [address] (Nos. 36 and 37), due to the positioning of existing dwellings. However, from [address] the dwellings would be clearly visible towards the end of that road with little built form located at the turning head where the access would be taken from.

Although access would be taken from [address], the proposed dwellings would not front that road but instead face the rear gardens of [address] properties. This arrangement and the limited landscaping between this development and others around it, unlike the development on [address], would be inconsistent with the established pattern of development on [address]. Furthermore, the siting of the dwellings within a plot associated with [address] but accessed from [address] would reinforce the lack of integration with either street scene.

While a group of garages is located next to the appeal site, these are clearly subordinate single-storey structures serving nearby dwellings. Their presence does not undermine the prevailing pattern of development on [address], where residential buildings are generally consistent in siting and design. In contrast, the proposed dwellings would not reflect the typical layout of the development on [address]. Although the proposed houses would be similar in scale with the [address] properties, they would remain partly screened from that road. The use of exposed brick would provide some visual link to the [address] development, but the overall layout and scale would not.

This lack of cohesion highlights that the scheme would fail to relate satisfactorily to either street scene. Despite its proximity to surrounding development, the appeal proposal would appear isolated due to its incompatible layout and design in relation to the established character of both [address] and [address].

Reference has been made to an application that was approved in [name] on [address] for two dwellings on an irregularly sized plot. That site is located in a different location where the pattern of development differed to that around the appeal site. Furthermore, the approved dwellings addressed the road similar to other dwellings on that road and thus did not appear uncharacteristic of other development nearby unlike the appeal scheme. Each case must be determined on its own merits and the site-specific circumstances, which are material, are notably different between the two schemes. Accordingly, for these reasons, I have come to a different conclusion than was the case for the development on [address].

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (LP). These expect developments, amongst other matters, to be informed by, respect and complement the distinctive qualities, identity, character and geographical features of the site and local area.

The garden for No. 36 is a modestly sized, rectangular parcel located to its side and rear, while the appeal site is generally triangular in shape with a small square section to be allocated for a driveway and parking. Next to the appeal site is No. 37, which has a large, triangular shaped garden comparable in size and shape to the appeal site. The dwellings to the rear of No. 36 are located a significant distance away, resulting in an outlook that is generally open and free from built form, with the appeal site on one side and the gardens of [address] properties on the other. The outlook from No. 37’s garden is partly enclosed by houses on [address] to the rear but remains open on either side.

The proposed development would introduce built form close to the shared boundary with No. 36. From this garden, the front and side elevations of the two-storey dwellings would occupy part of the flank boundary, creating a significantly more enclosed outlook. Although the view directly to the rear would remain largely unaffected, the proximity and scale of the proposed dwellings would result in most of the garden feeling substantially enclosed, given its limited size. This would have an unacceptably overbearing impact on the occupiers of No. 36. While a single-storey element is proposed on the flank wall nearest to No. 36, this reduction in height would not sufficiently mitigate the enclosing effect of the two-storey elements given the limited distance between the scheme and that garden.

The submitted plans indicate that the first-floor bedroom window in proposed [name] would be partially obscurely glazed, thereby preventing direct overlooking of the rear gardens of properties on [address]. However, the equivalent first-floor bedroom window in proposed [name] would not be obscurely glazed. Although a degree of mutual overlooking already occurs from the existing first-floor rear windows of dwellings on [address], the proposal would introduce new opportunities for overlooking from front-facing first-floor windows situated significantly closer to the neighbouring rear gardens than is presently the case from the side boundary. [address] A would be positioned further from the patio area of No. 36, the development would nonetheless result in an increased perception of overlooking, as well as actual overlooking from the front-facing window. This would lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy, and perceived loss of privacy, when compared with the existing situation.

The garden at [address] (No. 35) is narrower but deeper than that at No. 36, with a similar outlook. While the proposed development would introduce two-storey built form nearby, the separation distances involved would prevent the scheme from appearing unacceptably overbearing. However, the proposal would introduce the first-floor front-facing bedroom windows towards the side boundary that would result in a greater degree of perceived overlooking as well as the garden being overlooked with more direct views from the unobscured front-facing window. This would lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy and perceived loss of privacy compared to the existing situation.

No. 37’s garden is substantially sized, and the proposed dwellings would be set well away from most of it. Although a two-storey flank wall would be positioned near the shared boundary, its modest depth would only affect a small portion of the garden close to the widest point of the garden. The modest depth of the proposed houses and their setback from the majority of the garden, particularly the patio area directly to the rear of No. 37, would ensure the development would not appear significantly overbearing. The outlook from most of the garden would remain largely unaffected, and for these reasons, the impact on the occupiers’ outlook would not be unacceptably harmed.

Whilst the scheme would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 37 for the reasons given above, it would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 35 and 36. Consequently, insofar as it relates to the occupiers of Nos. 35 and 36, the proposed development would conflict with Policies 7 and 10 of the LP which expects development, amongst other matters, to not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy or outlook.

The two ground-floor, front-facing living room windows in [name] would be positioned close to the boundary fence of No. 36’s garden. Due to this limited separation, the outlook from these windows would be partially enclosed by the fencing, which may also restrict natural light reaching the room. However, [name] benefits from a substantially sized shared living space on the ground floor, incorporating two windows and glazed patio doors on the rear elevation. In total, this space would be served by five openings.

Although the front-facing outlook would be constrained, the rear aspect would offer an open view towards the garden boundary and properties on [address], which are set at a considerable distance. Given the separation between the proposed dwelling and surrounding development, there is no clear evidence that the level of light would be insufficient from the rear elevation.

Taking into account the size of the room, the number and positioning of openings, and the site’s characteristics, the outlook from the shared living space would not be substantially enclosed, and the room is likely to receive adequate light to avoid significant overshadowing.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [name]. Consequently, the development, insofar as it relates to the occupiers of [name], would not conflict with Policy 7 of the LP or Policy D6 of the London Plan. These seek, amongst other matters, for development to not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight or result in unacceptable outlook.

The Council acknowledges that it can currently only demonstrate a 3.4-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances paragraph 11d)ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole having regard to a number of matters.

The proposed development would deliver two, two-bedroom dwellings, and the Framework identifies that small and medium sites, like the appeal site, can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement for an area and can often be built out relatively quickly. In light of the Council’s housing land supply position, I attribute moderate weight to the proposal’s contribution to addressing this shortfall and significantly boosting the supply of housing, including through the delivery of smaller family homes. The development would also make effective use of under-utilised land in a predominantly residential area with access to nearby services and facilities using alternative transport options which may reduce pressure to build elsewhere.

There would be economic benefits both during and after construction. The scheme would also lead to landscaping enhancements around the dwellings including permeable surfaces to support drainage on site. The houses would also incorporate sustainable energy and water efficiency measures. There is also an intention to provide a financial contribution towards [name]. The occupiers of the proposed dwellings would also contribute towards the social fabric of the area. Additionally, the provision of cycle storage would promote opportunities to use alternative transport options. Whilst the scheme is limited in scale, I attribute modest weight to these benefits.

The proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 37 or the occupiers of the proposed development. However, the lack of harm in this regard weighs neither for nor against the development. Similarly, compliance or exceedance of [name] and on-site parking provision, weighs neither for nor against the scheme as this would be expected from most development proposals.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 35 and 36, and this would lead to a conflict with local development plan policies. Policies 7 and 26 of the LP state, amongst other matters, that developments should be of high-quality design that respect, reinforce and complement the local street scene. These policies are generally consistent with paragraph 135b) of the Framework which states that decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping. Policies 7 and 10 of the LP expects development, amongst other matters, to not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy or outlook. These are consistent with paragraph 135f) of the Framework which expects development to create places that have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Taking into consideration the consistency between the LP policies and those in the Framework, it follows that in light of the conclusions on the main issues, the scheme would conflict with the Framework in these regards, and I attach significant weight to the harm that would arise.

Overall, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, even when considered cumulatively, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.