Appeal 6000440

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of 8 no. apartments in two blocks, with associated bin and cycle storage and changes to the hard and soft landscaping to provide areas of communal and private amenity - as well as the relocation of secondary access doors two existing ground floor flats at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P1603.24 subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed flats with regard to outlook and private amenity space • whether the proposal would provide development in accordance with local housing mix policy • the effect of the proposal on local employment space • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the surrounding properties with regard to outlook, privacy and overshadowing • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area • the effect of the proposal on flood risk with particular regard to the [name] • the effect of the proposal on highway safety with particular regard to parking; and • whether the proposal would prejudice the future development of other sites nearby.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land situated to the rear of 157–[address], which consist of two-storey semi-detached properties accommodating a mix of commercial and residential uses. Access to the site is gained via a gated entrance between these properties from [address]. The site itself is irregularly shaped, with a central area currently used for car parking associated with an apartment block located to the west. This apartment block, along with another to the south, comprise large-scale buildings, some of which are positioned close to the shared boundary with the appeal site. The site is predominantly enclosed by timber fencing, except where neighbouring buildings are sited close to the boundary.

The scheme proposes two separate blocks: one two-storey building and one three-storey building. Both structures would be positioned close to the shared boundaries of surrounding plots. In particular, [name] would be located next to the large-scale apartment buildings, and a single-storey extension to a property on [address], which extends near the site boundary.

Flats 3 and 4 within [name] would be located at ground level. Due to the proximity of the building to the site boundaries, the bedroom windows of these flats would be positioned only a short distance from timber fencing, with proposed hedgerows situated directly in front. Consequently, the outlook from these bedrooms would be heavily restricted by both the fencing and hedgerows, creating an enclosed and visually intrusive environment. Additionally, one bedroom in Flat 4 would be partially enclosed by the adjacent single-storey extension to the east. While one bedroom in Flat 4 benefits from a dual-aspect design, the remaining rooms rely solely on these constrained windows. Given the limited separation and the dominance of surrounding built form, the outlook would be harmfully enclosed, adversely affecting the living conditions of future occupants. Although the submitted sunlight and daylight assessment prepared by [name] identifies compliance with Building Research Establishment (BR209 2022) guidance, this would not mitigate the overbearing impact of the surrounding built form.

The occupiers would be likely to spend a considerable amount of time, during the day, in the living and kitchen shared spaces and as such, the impact of the enclosed outlook from the bedrooms on the occupiers living conditions would not be as harmful with the outlook from the rest of the flats found to be acceptable. As such, the impact of the proposed outlook on the occupants’ living conditions would be lessened when taking into consideration how the flats as a whole would be used.

Flats 4, 6, and 8 feature living room and kitchen windows facing the brick elevations of nearby large-scale buildings located close to the site boundary. This would result in a restricted outlook from these windows. However, these flats also benefit from balconies and large windows overlooking the shared amenity space and the neighbouring car park, providing an open aspect in one direction. The multi-aspect layout would ensure that the outlook from these windows would not be completely enclosed from these shared spaces. Furthermore, the Sunlight and Daylight Assessment confirms that these rooms would receive adequate natural light in accordance with BR209 2022 guidance, supporting the suitability of the internal layout. Similarly, Flats 1 and 2, which are positioned further from adjacent buildings, would have outlooks that are not harmfully enclosed, with bedroom windows located at a considerable distance from [address] properties.

Each flat in [name] would have a balcony measuring approximately [address] metres (sqm), as required by Policy D6 of the London Plan. Flats within [name] would benefit from separate outdoor amenity areas, with Flat 2 featuring a balcony of approximately 6 sqm. Although this balcony is angular and does not maintain a depth of 1.5 metres across its full width, the presence of an additional garden area ensures compliance with the objectives of Policy D6 and would prevent any significant harm to living conditions in this regard. While the overall size of private amenity spaces would be modest, this provision is comparable to surrounding flatted developments and appropriate within the context of small rear gardens along [address]. Collectively, the balconies and shared amenity areas would provide adequate opportunities for outdoor use and social interaction, ensuring that the development would not compromise the quality of living conditions for future occupants.

Therefore, whilst the outlook from several of the flats would be appropriate and the private amenity space would be suitable for the proposed use, the outlook from the bedrooms in Flats 3 and 4 would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of those flats. Consequently, the development would conflict with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan (LP) and Policy D6 of the London Plan. These expect developments, amongst other matters, to not result in unacceptable loss of outlook.

Policy 5 of the LP requires development proposals to include a proportion of family-sized homes and to reflect the recommended housing mix set out in Table 5, unless robust justification is provided for any deviation. The proposed development would deliver two three-bedroom flats, equating to approximately 25% of the total units. This falls significantly short of the recommended mix in Table 5 of LP Policy 5, which expects around 80% of properties within schemes to have three or more bedrooms.

The appellant states that the housing mix represents the maximum reasonable provision achievable without compromising design quality, amenity standards, or scheme viability, however, no robust evidence has been submitted to justify the departure. Specifically, no viability assessment or alternative scheme has been provided to demonstrate that compliance with Table 5 would adversely affect design quality, living conditions, or financial deliverability.

Although the proposal would contribute some family-sized units towards addressing local housing need and noting that the housing mix is expressed as a recommendation rather than an absolute requirement, the absence of any substantive justification means that the deviation would not be considered appropriate in this instance. Accordingly, the development would conflict with Policy 5 of the LP insofar as it seeks to secure a proportion of family-sized homes and reflect the recommended housing mix identified in Table 5.

The Council identified that the proposal would result in the loss of Use Class1 B8 employment space within the appeal site. The appellant states that the site has historically been used in connection with a carpet shop and, while it has served as storage, it was not in B8 use. A letter from the current occupiers confirms that the storage is no longer required for the associated carpet shop. The Council acknowledged that the site was being used ancillary to the retail use but found that the appeal site did not benefit from lawful A1 use in its own right. I have not been provided with substantive evidence, such as a Lawful Development Certificate for the appeal site to confirm its lawful use.

It is not the purpose of this S78 appeal to determine the lawful use of the appeal site. However, while the site appears to have been used by the carpet shop, it does not necessarily mean it is in the use of the primary business. Based on the information before me and what I saw on site, the appeal site appears to be distinct from the retail premises. There is no substantive evidence that it is part of the same planning unit in an A1 use.

It has not been evidenced that the loss of this land would not lower the industrial capacity of the borough below that necessary to meet projected demand over the planning period.

While the owner of the carpet shop states that they no longer require the appeal site, it is not clear that a year of continuous active marketing has been undertaken to robustly demonstrate that there is no market interest in the use of the appeal site for B8 employment space from other potential occupiers as is expected by Policy 20 of the LP.

Policy 20 of the LP and E7 of the London Plan are, amongst other matters, concerned with the loss of industrial sites and land and the development would involve the loss of non-designated industrial land and floor space. Furthermore, justification has not been provided for the loss of this use and as such the scheme would conflict with those policies.

The buildings along [address] comprise mixed-use properties, including residential flats with windows overlooking the appeal site. At present, the outlook from these windows is towards the appeal site and the large residential apartment block beyond. Given the distances between the buildings on [address] and the nearby apartment blocks, the outlook is generally unenclosed. Similarly, the distances involved mean those apartments and the small gardens to the rear of them are generally not closely overlooked.

The proposed development would introduce new built form closer to the rear windows and gardens of the [address] properties. However, [name] would be positioned at a considerable distance from these flats. Its modest height and width, combined with the separation distance, would ensure that the outlook from the rear of these properties would not be significantly enclosed. [name] would be three storeys in height, its flat roof and similar separation distance would help prevent the building from appearing unduly overbearing. Furthermore, the gap 1 Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) between the two proposed blocks would reduce any cumulative enclosing effect when viewed from the [address] flats and gardens.

[name] would include bedroom windows facing towards the [address] properties. While this introduces windows closer to the rear elevations and gardens, the separation distances involved, together with the presence of brick boundary walls, would maintain an acceptable level of privacy and limit opportunities for overlooking. [name], although taller, would be located at a similar distance and for similar reasons would not result in a significant loss of privacy for the occupiers of the [address] properties.

The Sunlight and Daylight Assessment also sets out that the surrounding dwellings would not experience a noticeable reduction of daylight and sunlight in accordance with BR209 2022 guidance. Based on the scale and siting of the proposed development in relation to those schemes I concur. As such the scheme would not result in unacceptable overshadowing of nearby dwellings. While the Assessment identified that the ground floor windows of a nearby building would be marginally affected this related to a commercial unit and as such, the scheme would not unacceptably overshadow a residential use. Furthermore, whilst the affected windows may not comply with BR209 2022 guidance it would only fail to do so marginally. Consequently, this would not have an unacceptable impact on nearby users.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would not appear unacceptably overbearing nor would it result in a significant loss of privacy or result in unacceptable overshadowing. Consequently, the development would accord with Policies 7 and 26 of the LP as well as Policy D6 of the London Plan. These expect development, amongst other matters, to ensure it would not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy or outlook.

The appeal site is located to the rear of a group of two-storey buildings fronting [address], which are generally consistent in appearance and use, with many accommodating retail or commercial activities. Behind this frontage, on the same side as the appeal site, lies a mix of large industrial units and taller residential apartment blocks that are accessed via [address]. These substantial apartment buildings are prominent within views from [address] and surrounding roads and contribute to the character and appearance of the wider area. Overall, the locality exhibits a mixed commercial and residential character, comprising smaller two-storey properties along [address] and larger buildings set back from the road, typically accessed via side streets.

The appeal site currently comprises open land accessed between buildings off [address]. While there are several containers on the site, its lower ground level relative to [address] ensures that it is generally well screened from public viewpoints. Given the mixed-use nature of the surrounding area, the presence of these containers does not appear incongruous within the existing context.

To the rear of the appeal site stands a substantial residential apartment building that spans a width greater than the site itself. This building, together with a smaller nearby apartment block, visually dominates the appeal site. Combined with the properties on [address], the site is effectively enclosed on three sides by built form, with significant development along two of those boundaries.

The proposed development would introduce two blocks. [name] would be only marginally taller than the existing [address] properties, and its “L”-shaped design would help reduce its perceived bulk, ensuring it would appear subservient in scale. [name], at three storeys, would present a larger building than those on [address] next to the site. However, when viewed in the context of the considerably larger apartment buildings surrounding the site, particularly those on [address], both [name] and B would appear subordinate in scale with notably smaller massing and finer footprints.

Whilst those larger apartment buildings are accessed via [address], this is not necessarily appreciable along most of [address] where significantly sized residential apartment blocks form part of the character of the area. As such, the view of the appeal buildings, which would be smaller in scale than the buildings on [address], would appear appropriate when seen alongside these large buildings sited to the rear of the retail units fronting [address]. Furthermore, the proposal would reuse the existing access arrangement between the [address] properties, maintaining the established layout.

The proposed buildings would be separated from those on [address] by the internal access road, ensuring a sufficient gap to prevent any significant visually overbearing impact from [address]. Additionally, the appeal buildings would show a stepped increase in scale between those addressing [address] and the buildings to the rear of the site. The modest differences in scale between the proposed buildings and those to the front and rear of them would ensure the massing of the buildings would not appear out of character in this wider context. The proposed cycle storage and refuse storage buildings would be single storey buildings, limited in size. [name] would be located close to two neighbouring apartment blocks, the inclusion of gaps and open amenity spaces between the proposed and existing buildings would prevent the development from appearing cramped, maintaining a level of openness comparable to the development around [address].

The surrounding area features a mix of building styles, including two-storey properties fronting [address] with hipped roofs and bay windows, large-scale flat-roofed apartment blocks nearby, and, further afield, substantially taller buildings forming part of the wider street scene. Additionally, [address] includes flat-roofed commercial units, including the Romford bus garage. [name] would be brick-built with a flat roof, reflecting the characteristics of the larger apartment blocks in the vicinity and aligning with the prevalence of flat-roofed buildings in the area. [name] would also be brick-built but incorporate a hipped roof, echoing the design of the [address] properties. Taken together, the two blocks would successfully relate to both the smaller-scale development along [address] and the larger built form surrounding the site.

Therefore, the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area and would comply with Policies 3, 7 and 26 of the LP and Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan. These expect development, amongst other matters to be informed by respecting and complementing the distinctive qualities, identity, character and geographical features of the site and local area.

The appeal site is located within [name] 2. In accordance with the technical guidance set out to support the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), “more vulnerable” development, like the appeal scheme, is deemed appropriate within [name] 2 subject to a Flood Risk Assessment, and additionally where a sequential test has been passed. The purpose of the sequential test is to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable “reasonably available” sites at a lower flood risk within a defined area.

A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and a separate Flood Risk Sequential Test Assessment has been carried out for the appeal site. The FRA sets out several measures that would be necessary to ensure the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere and the Council and the Lead Local Flood Authority has not raised concerns with the conclusions of the FRA and based on the information before me I find no reason to come to a different conclusion on this matter.

An assessment of sites has been carried out within the Romford Strategic Development Area boundary that the appeal site is within. As the site is within a strategic priority development area, the approach taken would generally accord with national guidance concerning the location of reasonably available sites within a defined area. The site assessment has also considered sites that are notably smaller and larger than the appeal site which incorporates many possible alternatives. Taking into consideration that the test considered both allocated and windfall sites, substantive evidence has been provided to show that there are no reasonably available sites within the defined area which would support this size and type of development. The Council has not identified alternative “reasonable available” sites, nor has it determined that those discounted by the appellant were done so erroneously. Accordingly, the sequential test has been passed. Given that this has been passed and the appeal site is in [name] 2 and the scheme falls within the “more vulnerable” classification, an exception test is not required.

Therefore, the sequential test has been passed and subject to the implementation of matters set out within the FRA the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Consequently, the development would comply with Policy 32 of the LP, insofar as it expects developments to seek to avoid flood risk to people and property, and manages residual risk by applying the sequential test, amongst other matters.

The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 5; meaning it has relatively good access to public transport facilities and is located near to a range of services in the nearby area. Given the sites PTAL rating the scheme should be car free as per the maximum parking standards set out in Policy T6.1 of the London Plan. The scheme is proposed to be car free as per Policy T6.1, subject to a S106 agreement to secure this.

A S106 agreement via a [name] (UU) has been submitted with the appeal. This sets out that future residents would be unable to apply for parking permits, as well as provide a contribution towards a management monitoring fee. Consequently, the legal agreement would adequately secure car-free development, as required by Policy T6.1 of the London Plan and as such, the scheme would comply with that policy. As the development would be car free, the scheme would not result in the displacement of vehicles onto the surrounding road network.

As the objective of the legal agreement is to secure car-free housing in accordance with a specific policy in an adopted development plan, I am satisfied that the legal agreement is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. I am also satisfied that the legal agreement is directly, fairly and reasonably related to the development to be permitted, and as such it would accord with the relevant tests for such agreements.

Reference has been made to a commercial building next to the appeal site, located behind 151–[address], which could potentially be redeveloped, and concerns have been raised that the appeal proposal may prejudice such redevelopment. However, following a site visit, it is unclear which building the Council refers to, as the site currently accommodates what appears to be a recently constructed residential apartment block. The appellant has provided the relevant planning application reference for this development. In light of this and given the absence of any substantive evidence indicating that the site is earmarked for further redevelopment in the near future, I find no basis for this concern. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the site forms part of a wider comprehensive redevelopment scheme or is specifically allocated within the development plan. Accordingly, based on the information before me, the neighbouring site has already been redeveloped, and it is not evident that the proposed development would prejudice future redevelopment.

[address] is characterised by a group of two-storey buildings. There is no robust evidence to suggest that these properties, or a wider group along [address], are subject to significant development pressure. Similarly, there is no indication that these buildings form part of a strategic site allocation within the development plan. While there are industrial buildings located further from the appeal site that may be subject to future redevelopment, the appeal site is separated from these by a river and lies at a considerable distance. Based on the information before me, it has not been robustly demonstrated that the proposed development would prejudice any future redevelopment of these other sites.

As previously concluded, the scale of the appeal proposal would generally remain subservient to surrounding development and in particular the nearby apartment buildings. Given its modest and comparable scale, together with the gaps between and around the proposed buildings, there is no evidence to suggest that the scheme would impede the comprehensive redevelopment of nearby sites.

In the absence of substantive evidence that the proposed development would prejudice future redevelopment opportunities, I conclude that the scheme would not conflict with Policy 26 of the LP, which seeks to ensure that developments integrate appropriately with neighbouring sites, among other considerations.

Based on the information before me the baseline habitat for the site is tarmac and as such the development would not impact a priority habitat, less than [address] metres of onsite habitat or 5 metres of linear habitats. Consequently, the scheme is subject to the de minimis exception to the [name] requirement.

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, including those that give support for delivering new homes, the living conditions of nearby occupiers, the character and appearance of the area, highway safety and parking as well as ensure proposals do not prejudice future development, amongst others. However, the objectives of the development plan must be read as a whole and the conflicts I have identified result in a conflict with the development plan when it is considered as a whole.

The Council acknowledges that it can only demonstrate a 3.4-year supply of housing land. In these circumstances paragraph 11d)ii) of 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 Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to certain specified policies.

The proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of some of the occupiers of the proposed scheme and paragraph 135f) of the Framework seeks to ensure developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Whilst this would lead to harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the ground floor flats, the harm relates only to the outlook from the bedrooms and for the reasons given earlier in this decision the outlook from the rest of those flats would not be unacceptably enclosed. Accordingly, for these reasons the weight attributed to this adverse impact would be limited.

The proposal would not deliver an appropriate housing mix, and the scheme would consequently conflict with paragraph 61 of the Framework insofar as it states that the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community. The scheme would still deliver two 3-bedroom properties which would contribute towards delivering smaller family homes for which the evidence shows there is an identified need for and thus there would only be a minor conflict with the Framework in this regard.

The Framework sets out that employment land should be planned for and protected where justified and the scheme would result in the loss of employment land without substantive justification and thus would conflict with the Framework in this regard. However, the site is no longer needed by the current occupier, and the Council has not provided substantive information concerning the state of employment land in the borough generally. On the basis of the evidence before me, a significant adverse impact from its loss has not been demonstrated.

The proposed development would deliver 8 flats, including 2 family sized homes 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.

There would be short term and long-term economic benefits from the scheme. The proposal would also provide dedicated cycle parking spaces which would encourage sustainable modes of transport.

The proposal would reuse a previously developed site to deliver new homes within a settlement. Furthermore, it would contribute to addressing the identified housing shortfall, delivering small family homes and 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. The Framework supports schemes that would deliver the above benefits and thus the proposal would be consistent with it on these matters.

When considered against the many benefits of the proposal and in light of the Council’s significant shortfall in housing supply the adverse impacts of the proposed development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in paragraph 11. As Government policy, that is a material consideration of considerable weight.

The design and mix of the proposed development would undermine some of the aims of the development plan. The living conditions of residents, securing an appropriate housing mix and protecting employment land are important planning considerations and schemes should not necessarily be delivered that undermine these considerations. However, given that the enclosed outlook would not affect the flats as a whole and the scheme would still deliver some family sized homes to meet an identified need on a previously developed site, the scheme would deliver housing that would not fundamentally undermine the aims of the relevant policies.

On this basis, and because those policies most important for determining the appeal with which I have found conflict are deemed to be out of date, I find that the material considerations, taken together with the provisions of the Framework, indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, planning permission should be granted.

Further to the statutory commencement condition, a condition requiring the development is carried out in accordance with the permitted plans is necessary in the interests of certainty.

The appeal site lies in an area of archaeological interest and as such a condition requiring a stage 1 written scheme of investigation and the possibility of a stage 2 written scheme of investigation is necessary in the interests of ensuring that work that could affect archaeological remains is not undertaken before a programme of works is approved. It is necessary for this condition to be pre-commencement for this reason as well.

In light of the conclusions of the Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment a condition requiring a phase 2 and potentially a phase 3 report is necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed development. It is necessary for this condition to be pre-commencement to ensure the land is not contaminated or could be remediated, if necessary, before works that could affect this take place.

A condition requiring a [name] is necessary in the interests of the living conditions of nearby occupiers. It is necessary for this condition to be pre-commencement to ensure a plan is agreed before construction works which may affect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers begins. A condition restricting construction working hours is necessary for similar reasons. I have revised the working hours condition to remove the requirement for amplified music to not be played outside of those working hours, as if work is undertaken during the working hours set out in that condition, then any amplified music would not be associated with construction activity, so not related to the development.

Conditions to approve the external materials, hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Securing approval of obscure glazing of the bathrooms and en-suites and external lighting as well as implementation of refuse and recycling facilities is necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of the development and nearby occupants. Given that I have determined that the development does not result in harmful overlooking of nearby dwellings, it is not necessary to approve details to obscurely glaze windows that face towards nearby dwellings.

A condition requiring cycle storage is provided is necessary in the interests of promoting sustainable travel.

A condition securing permeable surfacing is necessary in the interests of ensuring the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

It is necessary to impose a condition to ensure that the development achieves Secured by Design certification in the interests of the living conditions and safety and well-being of the occupants of the scheme as required by Policies 7, 15 and 26 of the LP. I have reworded and combined the two suggested conditions in the interests of clarity.

Policy SI 5 of the London Plan expects development proposals to minimise the use of mains water and as such a condition that seeks to secure this would be necessary in the interests of doing so.

Whilst not suggested by the Council, in light of the conclusions of the FRA, a condition requiring the development is carried out in accordance with the conclusions of it is necessary in the interests of ensuring the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

The Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. Article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 Order states that "dwellinghouse", except in Part 3 (changes of use), [Class B (demolition of buildings) of Part 11 (heritage and demolition),] 9 Part 12A (development by local authorities and health service bodies) and Part 20 (construction of new dwellinghouses) of Schedule 2 to this Order, does not include a building containing one or more flats, or a flat contained within such a building. Consequently, Class A permitted development rights apply only to dwellinghouses, and as the development is a building containing flats, no such rights would exist. It is therefore unnecessary to impose a condition removing permitted development rights that are not in place.

A condition concerning the type of boilers or air source heat pumps that shall be installed has not been justified as reasonable or necessary in the context of the evidence before me.

The Phase 1 [name] determined that the habitats on site were of limited ecological value and that the likelihood of other protected species is negligible and no further consideration is needed. As such, it has not been substantiated that a condition requiring a [name] is necessary.

Given that a UU has been submitted to secure the scheme as car-free development a condition requiring submission of the details of how the scheme be secured as car free is not necessary.

As shown in the [name] prepared by [name], dated 28 February 2024 the dwellings, other than flat 4, have been designed to comply with part M4(2) standard for Accessible and Adaptable dwellings. Flat 4, which would be a ground floor flat, has been designed to comply with Part M4(3) standards as a wheelchair accessible dwelling. Consequently, based on the submitted evidence the development carried out in accordance with the submitted plans would comply with part M4(2) standards and thus a condition requiring it is not necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 4362_PL101A; 4362_PL108E; 4362_PL109E; 4362_PL110.1D; 4362_PL111B; 4362_PL112D; 4362_PL113A; 4362_PL117; 4362_PL118; and 4362_PL120.

No demolition or development shall take place pursuant to this development hereby permitted until a stage 1 written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. For land that is included within the WSI, no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, and the programme and methodology of site evaluation and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works. If heritage assets of archaeological interest are identified by the stage 1 WSI a stage 2 WSI shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. For land that is included within the stage 2 WSI, no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed stage 2 WSI which shall include: i. The statement of significance and research objectives, the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works. ii. Where appropriate, details of a programme for delivering related positive public benefits. iii. The programme for post-investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication & dissemination and deposition of resulting material. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the stage 2 WSI.

No demolition or development shall take place pursuant to this development hereby permitted until the following report(s) have be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority: i. A Phase II (Site Investigation) Report. This shall be an intrusive site investigation including chemical testing, quantitative risk assessment and a description of the sites ground conditions. An updated Site Conceptual Model shall be included showing all the potential pollutant linkages and an assessment of risk to identified receptors. ii. A Phase III ([name]) Report if the [name] confirms the presence of a significant pollutant linkage requiring remediation. A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to all receptors must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and procedure for dealing with previously unidentified any contamination. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. iii. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme mentioned in part (ii) of this condition, a "[name]" that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out, any requirement for longer-term monitoring of contaminant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development (or relevant phase of development) shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No demolition or development shall take place pursuant to this development hereby permitted until a [name] is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Construction Method statement shall include details of: i. parking of vehicles of site personnel and visitors ii. storage of plant and materials iii. dust management controls iv. measures for minimising the impact of noise and ,if appropriate, vibration arising from construction activities v. predicted noise and, if appropriate, vibration levels for construction using methodologies and at points agreed with the local planning authority vi. scheme for monitoring noise and if appropriate, vibration levels using methodologies and at points agreed with the local planning authority vii. siting and design of temporary buildings viii. scheme for security fencing/hoardings, depicting a readily visible 24- hour contact number for queries or emergencies ix. details of disposal of waste arising from the construction programme, including final disposal points. The burning of waste on the site at any time is specifically precluded x. a plan showing where vehicles will be parked within the site to be inspected for mud and debris and cleaned if required. The plan should show where construction traffic will access and exit the site from the public highway xi. a description of how the parking area will be surfaced, drained and cleaned to prevent mud, debris and muddy water being tracked onto the public highway xii. a description of how vehicles will be checked before leaving the site - this applies to the vehicle wheels, the underside of vehicles, mud flaps and wheel arches; and xiii. a description of how vehicles will be cleaned, how dirty/ muddy water be dealt with after being washing off the vehicles and a description of any contingency plan to be used in the event of a break-down of the wheel washing arrangements. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved [name].

Prior to development commencing above ground level a scheme for obscure glazing of the windows serving the bathrooms and en-suites for the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The obscure glazing shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the relevant flat in accordance with the agreed scheme for the development or relevant phase thereof and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Prior to development commencing above ground level, details/samples of all materials to be used in the external construction of the buildings, including balcony details, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter the development shall be constructed using the approved materials and retained as such thereafter.

Prior to development commencing above ground level details of the measures to be incorporated into the development demonstrating how it can achieve Secured by [name], shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted the development shall achieve Secured by [name] which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and the measures shall be maintained thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and shrubs on the site, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for protection during development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of all walls, fences and boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details for the external lighting scheme for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved lighting details prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and be retained as such thereafter.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, refuse and recycling facilities shall be provided on site in accordance with drawing nos 4362_PL108E and 4362_PL120. The refuse and recycling storage shall be retained as such thereafter.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, cycle storage shall be provided on site in accordance with drawing nos 4362_PL108E and 4362_PL120 and shall be retained as such thereafter.

All new hard surfaces hereby approved as part of the development (including any sub-base) shall be made of porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the application site. The new hard surfaces shall be retained as such thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the second, seventh, eighth and ninth bullet point set out on page 11 of the Flood Risk Assessment, prepared by [name] and Coastal Ltd, dated November 2024 and retained as such thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall design to ensure it does not exceed 110 litres per person per day water consumption levels (which includes external water usage).

All building operations in connection with the development hereby permitted shall only take place between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday, and between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and [name]/Public Holidays. End of Schedule