Appeal 6000423

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Havering and is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal was submitted before the Council issued its decision however, the Council provided the reasons it would have refused the application with its submitted evidence. Consequently, it follows that the main issues relevant to this appeal relate to those reasons for refusal.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on highway safety • whether the proposal would provide adequate servicing arrangements for the proposed dwellings • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed development with regard to crime and safety; and • whether the proposal would prejudice future development of the neighbouring garage block site.

The appeal site is located next to a garage block site that is accessed via [address]. Vehicles and pedestrians would have to pass through the garage block site to enter the appeal site. There are garages located either side of the proposed route into the appeal site and there is a pedestrian pavement that provides a route along the garage block site from [address] to [address]. The route between the garages is already effectively used as a shared surface with no pedestrian footpath along this part of the site. Based on the information before me, vehicles driven through the garage block site generally do so at slow speeds.

The parking spaces for the proposed dwellings would be located in front of the houses, and the submitted tracking plans show that vehicles could exit the appeal site onto the garage block site in a forward gear.

Evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that both vehicle users and pedestrians, using the pedestrian desire line through the centre of the route, would have adequate visibility to see other road users whilst travelling along the route in accordance with the guidance in Manual for Streets. The pedestrian desire line would connect with the pedestrian pavement, and a dropped kerb is also proposed to support pedestrian movement through the site towards [address] and [address].

Concerns were raised that, due to the surface of the garage block site, water could pool in the centre of the route, potentially forcing pedestrians to walk closer to the outer edges of the site where sightlines may be poorer and could be obstructed by parked vehicles. However, it is proposed to resurface the garage block site, and a condition could be imposed to ensure that the surface is permeable. In those circumstances, ponding would not be expected along the central route and pedestrians would be able to use the likely desire line through the site.

It is also proposed that signage would be installed around the garage block site to make road users aware that the route would operate as a shared space. Given the low vehicle speeds within the site and the proposed signage, this would assist in ensuring that road users have sufficient time and information to assess the situation and make informed decisions.

The garage block site has effectively been used as a shared surface for a likely significant period of time, and no evidence has been submitted to identify that there have been recorded incidents due to this. Whilst the proposal would introduce 3 dwellings and thus increase the number of road users who would pass through this site, the limited scale of the proposal would ensure the increase would be limited and this is supported by the TRICS data concerning trip generation. There is no substantive evidence before me to discount this data. While the proposal may increase the potential for conflict between road users, for the reasons given above, the route through the garage block site could be made acceptable in highway safety terms.

However, as shown on the vehicle tracking plans, vehicles would be required to pass in close proximity to the garages nearest to the proposed access point in order to enter or exit the appeal site. [name] observed during my site visit, and as noted by the Council, vehicles can be parked in front of these garages, materially reducing the available width of the access route. There is no substantive evidence before me that this does not or cannot occur.

Based on the submitted evidence the appellant does not control this land and has identified no enforceable legal mechanism by condition, agreement or other obligation that would prevent such parking or otherwise guarantee that the access width would remain unobstructed over time. In consequence, there is a realistic and continuing prospect that the only vehicular route to and from the dwellings could be impeded or blocked by third-party actions beyond the appellant’s control. That outcome would generate conflict between users and would fail to provide a safe and suitable access for all users. While pedestrians may be able to pass parked vehicles more easily than other vehicles, any obstruction would nevertheless further exacerbate conflict within the access route.

Suggested resurfacing, wayfinding and shared-space signage would not address the decisive issue here, which is the lack of secured, unobstructed width at the access point. Nor would low existing speeds or the historic operation of the garage block site as an informal shared surface overcome the residual safety risk where the ability to maintain safe access is contingent on the behaviour of third parties. In these circumstances, and in the absence of a binding, site-controlling mechanism, I cannot be satisfied that safe and suitable access would be achieved for the lifetime of the development.

Although the driveway serving [address] also passes through the garage block site, this arrangement does not demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be secured for the appeal site. The evidence shows that vehicles can and do park in front of the garages nearest the access point, narrowing or obstructing the route, and no enforceable mechanism has been identified to prevent such obstruction. Given the increased intensity of use that would arise from three additional dwellings, and the reliance on third-party land outside the appellant’s control, there remains a realistic and unacceptable risk that access to the site would be compromised. Accordingly, the existence of the approved dwelling does not alter my conclusions on highway safety.

Overall, the proposal fails to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access to the site could be achieved for all users and would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. As a result, it would conflict with Policies 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (HLP) as well as Policies D6, T4 and D11 of the London Plan (LP). These expect developments, amongst other matters, to ensure good access, improve road safety and emergency safety measures.

Based on the information before me, refuse collection vehicles would not be able to drive through the garage block site to serve the proposed dwellings. The Council indicate that refuse collection would therefore need to take place near the junction of [address] and The Glen. The Waste Management Practice Supplementary Planning Document advises that the recommended maximum distance from the point of collection is 30 metres. In this case, while space would be available within the gardens to store bins and recycling, occupiers would be required to move them approximately 80 metres to the collection point.

The Council also state that, due to the distances involved, refuse collection crews would not transfer bins or recycling from the proposed dwellings to the location where the refuse vehicle could park. While on-plot storage would be possible, the excessive carry distance would, as a matter of practical operation, likely lead to bins being presented on collection days along [address]. That would introduce recurrent highway and footway obstructions, adversely affecting pedestrians, wheelchair users and other vulnerable users, and adding street clutter harmful to local character.

Moreover, to reach the collection point, residents must move bins through the same garage block site where the access width can, on the evidence before me, be narrowed by vehicles parked in front of garages, and where no segregated pedestrian route exists. This combination of extended carry distance, constrained width and shared surface would increase conflict between users and would not represent convenient, inclusive or safe servicing for day-to-day living.

It is not evident that these matters could be resolved by planning condition. The arrangement stems from the site’s geometry, the off-site collection regime and the lack of control over third-party land. No condition before me would shorten the carry distance, provide dedicated and safeguarded pedestrian space through the garage block site, or secure unobstructed bin movement on collection days.

While earlier applications and an appeal relating to three dwellings on this site were not refused or dismissed on servicing grounds, those schemes incorporated a materially different access arrangement. In particular, the previous proposals included a dedicated pedestrian route along the frontage of dwellings in [address], providing a shorter and direct connection via a segregated pavement. That arrangement would have avoided the need for pedestrians and refuse movements to pass through the constrained shared surface of the garage court.

In the present scheme, no such dedicated pedestrian route is available, and all movements would be channelled through the narrow garage court where parked vehicles can significantly restrict width. This fundamental difference alters the operational impact and gives rise to the servicing and safety concerns set out above. Accordingly, these material differences justify a different conclusion from that reached in relation to previous iterations of development on the site.”

Therefore, the proposed development would not provide adequate servicing arrangements and would conflict with Policies 10, 24 and 35 of the HLP and Policy D6 of the LP. These seek, amongst other matters, for developments to allow for convenient and safe access to manage waste, including for older persons or persons with disabilities and allow for convenient and safe access for waste collection services.

The garage block is bounded by two-storey houses on three sides, with rear first-floor windows overlooking it. As such, there is already a degree of natural surveillance over the garage block site.

There is also a pedestrian route through the garage block site connecting [address] with [address]. Consequently, it is likely that there is already some pedestrian movement through the garage block site and those visiting the proposed dwellings would further increase the activity that occurs through the garage block site. The appellant also proposes to introduce street lighting within the garage block site, which would ensure that the route to the appeal site would be adequately lit.

Given that the site is located within a predominantly residential area and is overlooked by the surrounding dwellings, and that the pedestrian route would benefit from lighting, the proposed development would not give rise to significant crime and safety issues to the detriment of the living conditions of future occupiers. Therefore, the proposal would comply with Policies 10 and 26 of the HLP and Policies D6, T4 and D11 of the LP which seek, amongst other matters, for developments to provide active street, good sightlines and natural surveillance.

The Council state that the proposal would prejudice the future development of the garage block site, as the proposed development would take its vehicular access through that land.

However, based on the information before me, the garage block site remains in active use and there is no substantive evidence to indicate that it is likely to be redeveloped. The site is not identified as a residential allocation within the HLP, nor is it shown to be part of any wider residential proposal. Furthermore, [address] already takes its vehicular access through the garage block site, and any future redevelopment of that site would need to take that existing arrangement into account.

No scheme has been submitted to redevelop the garage block site, either on its own or as part of a comprehensive redevelopment with the appeal site. While the need to provide vehicular access to the appeal dwellings may place some constraints on the layout of any future redevelopment, it has not been substantially demonstrated that the appeal proposal would prevent the garage block site from being redeveloped in any form. Therefore, the proposed development would not conflict with Policy 10 of the HLP insofar as it expects development to not prejudice the future development of neighbouring sites.

In respect of the main issues, I have found conflicts with relevant development plan policies. There are various other development plan policies with which the proposal would comply with including those related to crime and safety and whether the proposal would prejudice future development, amongst others. However, the objectives of the development plan must be read as a whole. It is not the intention of the HLP for development to be provided at the expense of all other considerations. Taking into account the above considerations, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council acknowledges that it can 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, 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 taken as a whole having regard to a number of matters.

The harms I have identified include the absence of a safe and suitable access for all users, and the failure to provide inclusive, convenient and safe servicing arrangements. These matters cut to the heart of the Framework’s requirements for well-designed, safe and inclusive places and for developments to not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and these matters are not capable of resolution by condition on the evidence before me.

The proposed development would deliver three dwellings within an existing settlement, 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. Furthermore, it would contribute to addressing the identified housing shortfall, delivering small family homes and contributing towards significantly boosting the supply of housing while making effective use of under-utilised land with access to nearby services and facilities using alternative transport options which may reduce pressure to build elsewhere. The Framework supports schemes that would deliver the above benefits and thus the proposal would be consistent with it on these matters.

There would be short term economic benefits both during and after construction. The occupiers would contribute towards the social fabric of the area, and the three smaller family homes would support housing provision to meet identified local needs. The scheme would also lead to landscaping and environmental enhancements, including photovoltaic panels and electric vehicles charging points.

Reference has been made to incidents of fly tipping and anti-social behaviour on the site. [name] do not dismiss these reports, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate either their frequency or severity, nor that the proposed development would be the only or necessary means of addressing them. Planning decisions must be based on land-use effects supported by evidence, and in the absence of such substantiation I cannot give this matter weight either in favour of or against the scheme.

The scheme would accord with many of the policies in the Framework. While the delivery of housing is a key aim of the Framework, this is in the context of the need to secure a safe and suitable access to the site for all users and the Framework does not indicate that delivery should be at the expense of creating places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Therefore, even though there are many benefits to the scheme, taking the policies of the Framework as a whole, and having particularly regard to those listed in paragraph 11d)ii), I find that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so. Accordingly, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in paragraph 11 of the Framework.

Taking into consideration the conclusions on the first and second main issues, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan as a whole. The material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission should be refused. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR