Appeal 6000484

The appeal is dismissed.

An amended proposed ground floor plan has been provided with this appeal to seek to overcome the second reason for refusal. A habitat base line map has also been provided to seek to overcome the fifth reason for refusal. I do not regard this amended plan and additional information as involving substantial differences or fundamental changes to the application. Nor do I consider that accepting the above would lead to procedural unfairness to interested parties. I have therefore determined the appeal having regard to this amended and additional information.

The main issues are: • the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect on the living conditions of No 2a [site address] , with particular regard to outlook; • the effect on the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed new dwelling, with particular regard to natural light and internal ceiling height; • whether the dwelling of No 4 to be retained as part of the proposal would be provided with an adequate parking and access layout; and • whether the proposal is exempt from biodiversity net gain.

The appeal site (No 4) comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. It is within an urban location and has a layout akin to a corner plot, being located along a bend of [site address] and near to its junction with [address]. Dwellings in the immediate vicinity are mainly semi-detached, although a new dwelling (No 2a) is attached to No 2 as allowed on appeal in January 20241.

The wider vicinity has also evolved and intensified, including a new dwelling at the junction of [site address] and [address]. This example is of similar scale to the dwelling it attaches to, as is No 2a. Many other dwellings are significantly extended to the side at two storey level, including on [address], [address] and Evansdale.

The proposal site forms a wedge-shaped gap between the side elevation of No 4 and the rear and side elevations of No 2a, narrowing away from the highway. The proposed dwelling includes a chamfered two storey elevation between the larger side and rear elevations that would be in very close proximity to the No 2a’s side boundary. This would be visible when passing the site along [site address] .

I accept that the proposed dwelling is of broadly similar design to No 4 in which it would adjoin, including its front and rear dormers, and that hipped roof forms are found on some dwellings in the area. The proposed proximity to the side boundary with No 2a would however appear cramped and would substantially enclose the largely open gap between No 4 and No 2a. Such proximity to a property or highway boundary line at two storey level is not replicated by No 2a’s siting with surrounding boundaries, nor that of the new dwelling at the [address] junction, or the abovementioned side extensions that I also observed during my site visit.

I therefore conclude that the proposed new dwelling would significantly harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (HLP) (Adopted 2021). These policies require, amongst other things, high design quality that respects the visual integrity and established rhythm of the surrounding physical context. Living conditions – No 2a [site address]

No 4 contains an outbuilding with a pitched roof along the side boundary with the small rear garden area of No 2a. This neighbouring dwelling contains a single storey rear extension with rear elevation window, close to the proposed chamfered two-storey elevation. No 2a’s extension also has a larger side elevation window, and this dwelling also has two other garden areas to its side and front that have more open aspects along the public highway.

However, the proposed dwelling would protrude substantially above the existing outbuilding along the boundary with No 2a, and at very close proximity to this boundary. Whilst loss of a particular view is not a relevant consideration, I anticipate that the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to the rearmost window of No 2a, and the rear garden area beyond it, would appear and feel adversely oppressive and overbearing. Being furthest away from the highway, this rear garden area is the most private section of No 2a’s garden areas and would thus likely be well used by occupiers, which would accentuate this harmful impact.

I therefore conclude that the proposed new dwelling would significantly harm the living conditions of No 2a in terms of outlook. The extent of harm amounts to conflict with Policies 7 and 10 of the HLP, insofar as they require residential 1 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/W/22/3311681 development to not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity and quality of life of existing and future residents, including avoiding unacceptable loss of outlook.

The proposed new dwelling’s ground floor would provide an open-plan dual-aspect kitchen and living room. The larger front window serving this area is mainly north-facing. However, the bifold doors at the kitchen end would mainly face south. Given the site’s context, the overall layout of this open-plan area would be provided with adequate natural light. The proposal would thus comply with Policy 7 of the HLP and Policy D6 of the London Plan, insofar as they require residential development to be sited and designed to maximise daylight and sunlight, and to maximise the provision of dual aspect dwellings.

HLP Policy 7 also requires residential development to meet the London Plan requirement for floor-to-ceiling heights. London Plan Policy D6 sets out that minimum floor to ceiling height for housing development must be 2.5m for at least 75% of the dwelling’s Gross Internal Area. Cross-section plans show that the new dwelling would have a floor-to-ceiling height of between 2.3m to 2.4m across its ground and first floors. This is only marginally below 2.5m.

The proposed second floor plan providing a bedroom and ensuite would have a maximum floor to ceiling height of just over 2.1m. This is not however an uncommon layout within a dwelling’s roof space. All internal room heights are reasonably dictated by No 4’s existing height. Given these circumstances, the development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers in respect of natural light and internal ceiling height. In these respects, the scheme therefore complies with the relevant requirements of HLP Policy 7 and London Plan Policy D6, as already set out above. Parking and access – No 4

The off-street parking space proposed for the retained dwelling of No 4 would be in front of its front entrance door. The proposed ground floor plan annotates this parking space to have a depth of 5m, abutting the front door. Larger vehicles such as SUVs parked in this location could therefore present an obstruction to this door for many users.

However, many other vehicle types commonly used in urban areas are notably shorter than as described above, and I have not been provided with a development plan policy that requires a minimum size of parking space for a new dwelling. I thus see no reason why a flexible approach to parking size cannot be taken in this circumstance. Moreover, a modest additional surface width to provide access to the front door along the side of the parking area could be secured by means of a suitably worded planning condition, had I been minded to allow the appeal.

I therefore conclude that it is possible for No 4 to be retained with an adequate parking and access layout alongside the proposed dwelling. This would not conflict with HLP Policy 7 and London Plan Policy D5 insofar as they require development to be of inclusive design, with no disabling barriers, and provide independent access without additional undue effort, separation or special treatment.

The fourth reason for refusal also cites conflict with HLP Policy 24. However, the proposed dwelling and the retained dwelling would each be provided with one off-street parking space, which in quantitative terms would not conflict with Policy 24. This policy does not refer to specific access requirements for parking spaces and the residences they would serve. I have therefore found no conflict with this policy.

On 02 April 2024, the Environment Act 2021 statutory provisions relating to BNG came into force for smaller sites such as the appeal site. This is principally set out under Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ([name]). Under this statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. This objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat.

Article 7(1A) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 ([name]) requires applications for planning permission to be accompanied by certain information relating to BNG, except where one of the exemptions specified in the legislation applies. The information required includes a declaration as to whether the applicant believes the BNG provisions apply to the application, and if not, the reasons why.

The appellant’s application form indicated that the proposal would be a type of self-build and custom development that is exempt from BNG. However, the absence of an appropriate legal mechanism before me, such as a S106 agreement or unilateral undertaking, means that such BNG exemption is not secured with any degree of certainty.

Notwithstanding the above, the appellant’s statement sets out that the proposal is exempt from BNG under the “de-minimis exemption”. There is no evidence before me that the development would impact a priority habitat. The habitat baseline map for the proposal shows that it would not impact existing onsite habitat, which reflects what I saw during my visit. I therefore conclude that the scheme benefits from a relevant exemption from the above legal requirements relating to BNG.

The site is within [name] 1 and is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it Listed or within the setting of a Listed Building. These matters, along with the de minimis BNG exemption, neither weigh in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

I have found no conflict with [name] 7 and 24 and London Plan Policies D5 and D6 in respect of the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed new dwelling, and access and parking for No 4 to be retained. However, I have found significant conflict with other requirements of HLP Policy 7 in respect of the character and appearance of the area, and the impact on the living conditions of No 2a [site address] , and I have also found further conflict with [name] 10 and 26 in respect of those two main issues. This extent of harm amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole.

As indicated in the officer report, the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with supply stated as 3.4 years. The latest [name] (HDT) results for 2023, published by the Government in December 2024, shows the Council’s HDT result as 61% (i.e. between the financial years of 2020-2023, there were 61% as many completions as the number of homes required). No evidence is before me to indicate an improvement to this situation.

In these circumstances, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged by its footnote 8. It sets out that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework policies taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including those for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, and securing well-designed places.

The proposal would make a small contribution to the Council’s housing supply. Small sites such as this can cumulatively make a meaningful contribution to supply. There would also be provision of some new hedgerow and additional areas of vegetated garden, along with replacement of existing hardstanding with permeable paving. Moderate weight is therefore afforded to the economic, social and environmental benefits arising from the above.

The scheme would use land within a settlement area that is already developed and served by lit public footpaths providing easy and safe access to bus stops and local amenities. However, accordance with the Council’s development plan in terms of location of development would neither weigh in favour nor against the proposal.

The proposal site cannot be reasonably described as underutilised brownfield land, as it is clearly used for the parking of vehicles, and as part of No 4’s private rear garden. In any event, the Framework sets out that the efficient use of land should take into account the importance of securing well-designed places, along with healthy living conditions which I interpret to include neighbouring residents.

In the particular circumstances of this case, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits assessed against the relevant and key Framework policies taken as a whole. It would not therefore be the sustainable development for which paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework indicates a presumption in favour.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.