Appeal 6000426

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development on the application form and have removed words not relating to acts of development for clarity.

I am in receipt of amended plans from those considered by the Council. The amended plans show a different roof design on the front roof slope. As these are minor amendments, I do not consider that the Council’s interests, or those of the interested parties would be prejudiced if I take these amended plans into account.

Therefore, having regard to the judgement in Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney (2018), which refined the “Wheatcroft principles” set out in [name] v Secretary of State for the Environment (1982), I shall therefore determine the appeal on the basis of the amended plans.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (a) the character and appearance of the area; (b) the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to parking provision; and (c) the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is a nursery which occupies a detached building on a corner plot. The area surrounding the nursery is mixed use, with both residential dwellings and shops and businesses near to the site. The buildings are set back from [address], giving a wide, open character. This continues into the residential side streets, where the buildings on either side of the junction into [address], including the appeal site, are also set back from the road, creating a spacious entrance.

Although there is variation within groups of buildings, the prevailing character of the area is formed by the consistent scale of the buildings, together with recurring features such as bay windows. Of particular note, the semi-detached dwellings adjacent to the appeal site share a distinctive roof slope on the front elevation which connects the bay window to the porch. The building on the appeal site is of a different design to its neighbours on that side of [address]. However, it has an elongated front roof slope which reflects the distinctive roof slopes of the adjacent dwellings, albeit on a different elevation.

The main bulk of the existing building is set away from the boundary wall. The proposal would bring tall flank elevation to the boundary wall. The introduction of the side extension would significantly increase the scale and bulk of the building, increasing its width beyond that of other buildings commonly found in the area. The uncharacteristic side extension would draw undue attention owing to the prominent corner location of the building. The extension would square-off the elongated front roof slope, removing the feature that reflects the distinctive roof slopes of the adjacent dwellings, which would not be sympathetic in scale or design to the host property.

Although it would respect established building lines on the front elevation, the proposal occupying most of the width of the plot would detract from the spacious entrance to [address]. From within [address], the full extent of the rear dormer would be seen. Owing to its limited set-back on the rear roof slope, the dormer element would increase the perceived height of the building. As such, the combined increase in width together with the introduction of the full width dormer would be dominating and incongruous within the street scene.

An example has been provided to me of a similar building that has been extended, [address]. However, the extension at No 26 has respected the original form of the dwelling through the retention of the gabled front and sloping roof, which has retained visual consistency with the character of [address]. This is in contrast to the proposal before me, which would square-off the original form of the building. As such, No 26 is not comparable to the appeal before me, and therefore bears little weight in my determination.

Another extension, at No [address], has been presented to me, owing to its scale and positioning on a corner. However, it is different to the appeal site in so far as the massing of the original building made it appear wider than the appeal site. The extension has been stepped back at first floor level from the front elevation, and the dwelling has a hipped roof. As such, the extension at No 81 does not appear to be as bulky as the proposal before me.

Other examples of dwellings along [address] (including Nos 10, 12, 16, 27 and

together with Nos 2 and [address] and [address] have been provided to me. These examples demonstrate that alterations and extensions are an established part of the character of the area. However, the scale and massing of these examples are not comparable to the appeal scheme before me, which would be significantly wider. Although the examples provided have extended either to the side, into the roof space, or both, they have retained most of the original design and detail of the front elevation of the dwelling, which is in contrast to the appeal scheme.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy 26 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (Local Plan), which seeks to promote high quality design that respects the local street scene.

The Council references Policy 7 of the Local Plan, which seeks to ensure residential development should be of a high-quality design. As this proposal is not for residential development, Policy 7 is not relevant to this issue.

The building is already in use as a nursery, and the appellant has provided evidence indicating that more than half of the parents and guardians walk to and from the nursery. The proposed development would facilitate an increase in the number of children attending the nursery, also increasing the number of journeys being made as a result. Although the majority of users would likely still access the nursery on foot, it follows that the number of those accessing it by car would also be likely to increase.

The nursery has two existing drop-off/pick-up bays at the front of the building. There are several pay and display parking bays in front of the shops on [address], as well as parking bays on [address]. Most dwellings near to the appeal site had dropped kerbs, with limited raised kerbs to park against. As such, near to the nursery there appear to be limited places to park safely.

I understand that the nursery already has a system in place to allow a smooth drop off/pick-up process, which includes the use of an app and staggered start and finish times. Even so, the evidence suggests that currently, around the time of the morning drop-off and the afternoon pick-up, the area can be congested with traffic with cars being parked unsafely. The increase in the number of children attending the nursery would increase the demand for parking, resulting in more cars being parked unsafety or performing unsafe manoeuvres, which would harm highway safety.

The proposal would provide an additional dedicated drop-off/pick-up bay on [address]. Given the existing situation together with the additional children that would attend the nursery as a result of the proposal, one additional space alone would be unlikely to adequately offset the harm to parking provision or highway safety. The appellant has indicated that an internal traffic management system would be implemented. However, I have not been provided with sufficient evidence of its contents, or whether this would adequately address the harm I have identified.

The appellant has suggested that the spaces in front of the shops could be used for parking. However, I do not have details of their ownership before me, so I cannot be sure that these would be retained as parking spaces for use by the nursery in the future. Without a formal mechanism before me to secure the use of the parking spaces, the possibility of their use bears limited weight.

I acknowledge that no objection was raised by the Highway Authority. However, paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) identifies that the threshold for refusing development is “if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe...”. My findings above lead me to conclude that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

A number of other examples of nurseries have been provided to me which include [name], [name], [name], [name], [name] and Preschool and the [name]. Although the appellant has provided me with a description of the nearby parking, I have not been presented with comparative evidence of the number of children attending the nurseries, nor any details of the existing parking or safety concerns, or wider site context. It is therefore difficult to compare these examples presented to the appeal site with regard to parking and highway safety.

On the strength of evidence provided, the proposal would intensify and exacerbate the current situation, which would lead to harm to highway safety and parking. The addition of one drop-off/pick-up space proposed would not outweigh the harm I have identified. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Point i.d. of Policy 16 and Policies 17, 23 and 24 of the Local Plan which collectively seek to ensure that developments demonstrate that adverse impacts on the transport networks are avoided, and that proposals for nurseries will ensure that drop-offs and pick-ups can be catered for safely.

The site is already used as a nursery, therefore the neighbouring occupiers would experience a certain level of operational noise and disturbance resulting from its use. The proposed development would increase the number of children within the nursery daily, therefore it is likely that a marginal increase in noise and disturbance would be experienced by neighbouring residents during its operation.

That being said, the appellant has indicated that the nursery operates between 7.30am and 6.30pm during the week. Any resulting noise and disturbance would therefore be limited. The building itself is detached, which also offers an acoustic buffer. [name] have not been presented with a detailed noise assessment, given the existing use and operating hours, together with the evidence I have received from the Council, I find it unlikely that the proposal would result in a significant increase in noise and disturbance which would harmfully affect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

As such, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies 7 and 34 of the Local Plan, which seek to ensure that developments do not negatively impact upon the living conditions of existing or future neighbouring occupants. The Council has also referred me to Policy 26 of the Local Plan which deals with urban design and is therefore not relevant to this issue.

I understand that the appellant has made a significant investment into the building. I have been provided with evidence that there is demand for more nursery spaces in the area, owing to the long waiting list, nearby housing developments, and allocation of funding. I have also had regard to the benefits of the proposal for the provision of jobs and training opportunities in the local area. I have also taken into account the parent and staff testimonials provided to me, and understand the importance of increased early years provision which would result from the proposal would be a benefit which would support working families and would strengthen local infrastructure. These factors weigh in favour of the proposed development.

Although there are a number of benefits of the proposed development, on the strength of evidence, they do not outweigh the harm I have found on both the first and second main issues. However, the proposal is in conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. I therefore conclude, for the reasons given, that the appeal should be dismissed.