Appeal 6000404

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook, privacy and the provision of outdoor space.

The appeal property is a two-storey, detached dwelling within a residential suburb of Romford. The property has been subject to a number of extensions and alterations resulting in a substantial building with a comparatively modest rear garden. A commercial business park lies immediately to the rear of the appeal site.

No [address] was the subject of a planning application for a broadly similar proposal, to divide the existing property into two separate residential units, which was refused by the Council. The refusal was appealed and I have been directed to that decision1 by the appellant. That appeal (the previous appeal) was dismissed and the current proposal has been amended to consider the Inspector’s findings. I have considered the current appeal on its own merits.

The proposed site plan, drawing no FP07, annotates the proposed dwellings as House 1 and House 2, I will refer to them as such.

House 1 would be mainly open plan on the ground floor, with a new window and patio doors installed to the rear elevation. These would be exceptionally close to the boundary of the property with no prospect of any meaningful outlook due to the existing boundary treatment between the site and the adjacent commercial park, immediately to the rear. 1 Ref: APP/B5480/W/24/3350521

The existing windows and entrance door on the front elevation would be retained. These windows would primarily serve the living room space and provide modest views of the street.

Similarly, House 2 would have an open plan ground floor main living area, the existing window on the front elevation offers a modest view of the street. The proposed patio doors on the rear elevation, and the window in the side elevation have been widened in comparison to the previous proposal, but the outlook remains limited to the rear boundary fencing, side boundary fencing and flank walls of adjacent garages.

The proposed sub-division of the dwelling would result in two dwellings with very small garden areas with very limited meaningful outlook. The two proposed garden spaces, while offering some potential for greenery, would be notably limited in size and function. Each area is compact, leaving little room for seating, relaxation, or any sense of seclusion. Their narrow layout and proximity to boundaries and buildings mean that they lack the privacy and spaciousness typically associated with gardens designed for personal enjoyment. Instead of serving as tranquil retreats, these spaces would feel more like decorative patches. The proposed 1m boundary treatment would further erode privacy between the two dwellings.

The appellant has taken a number of steps to address the concerns of the previous Inspector, for example reconfiguring the layout of the ground floor. The appellant also proposes a 1.0m high timber boundary fence (Drawing no FP07) between House 1 and 2.

Whilst potentially diminishing the adverse effect on outlook for any future occupiers, the reduction in height of the fencing from 1.7m to 1.0m, would result in increased overlooking and loss of privacy to the private garden spaces of both dwellings.

Moreover, I find that the outlook and orientation of the retained window in the side elevation of Bedroom 3 of House 1 (Drawing no FP04) would result in significant harm to the future occupiers of House 2 through overlooking and loss of privacy.

As a result, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of future occupiers. It would therefore conflict with Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 7 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) which in part, seek to ensure that suitable living conditions are provided as part of new developments and that proposals are well designed.

The appellant outlined changes to the internal layout providing better circulation space and level thresholds through to the garden spaces, which would make the properties more accessible for future occupiers with limited mobility. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm I have concluded under the main issue.

I have had regard to other concerns raised by the interested parties, including alternative uses of the appeal property. [name] appreciated these concerns, I have considered the appeal on its own merits.

In support of the appeal proposal the appellant highlighted that the future occupiers would be close to public transport, goods and services negating the reliance on private motor vehicles. This benefit does not outweigh the harm identified.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites for housing and as a result of the shortfall in supply and delivery, policies related to the location and supply of housing are deemed to be out of date.

In these circumstances, Paragraph 11d and footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) require that 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 as a whole.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the proximity to public transport, good and services. The provision of a single new home that would assist in meeting need in the area, support for local facilities, and the creation of jobs during the construction phase. However, the extent of these benefits would be limited by the scale of the development for one dwelling.

I have concluded that there would be material harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed development. The support for the principle of development within the Framework is countered by the importance it places on the provision of development with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. In this instance, the harm would be both significant and enduring. When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Consequently, for the reasons given, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.