Appeal 6000527

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on a) highway safety; b) the living conditions of future occupiers with specific regard to outside amenity and outlook; and c) the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located within a small cul-de-sac where marked bays have been introduced to manage on street parking and thus maintain safe conditions. Although the area is not within a controlled parking zone, these measures indicate existing pressure on parking within the highway. The site has a very low Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 1b, meaning future occupants would be more reliant on the private car for day to day journeys. Policy 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2016–2031 2021 (LP) requires minimum parking provision for sites with PTALs of 0–1 and where development leads to the net loss of car parking spaces, it requires applicants to robustly demonstrate that there is no need for those spaces.

The appellant’s parking survey, based on three short observations over a single weekend, suggests spare capacity for three to five on-street spaces. However, this limited snapshot does not provide a reliable picture of typical weekday demand or periods when the nearby church holds services. The church has a car park, but it is contextually quite small and is therefore also likely to generate some demand for overspill parking, particularly given the poor public transport accessibility. Consequently, the evidence submitted is insufficient to demonstrate that the loss of on-site spaces would not lead to harmful overspill parking on the street. In a situation where demand might be higher at different times.

At best, the proposal would displace two vehicles onto the highway, and this might be absorbable into the existing situation. In reality however, given the low PTAL rating, existing parking pressures, and taking into account potential additional demand from the church, the likelihood is that overspill parking and thus demand for the spaces in the highway would be more significant than has been evidenced. This is without taking into account what the new dwelling may require. These matters would exacerbate congestion within the cul-de-sac where people might park indiscriminately, impede the free flow of traffic, and increase the risk of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, to the detriment of highway safety.

Increased on-street parking would also compromise pedestrian safety. Vehicles parked outside marked bays could force pedestrians, including those with wheelchairs or pushchairs, to step into the carriageway to navigate around obstructions. Inconsiderate or obstructive parking is a foreseeable consequence of the proposal, and this would further heighten risks to both vehicular and pedestrian safety.

As a result, the proposals would have an unacceptably harmful effect on highway safety by reason of inadequate parking provision. This would be contrary to Policies 23 and 24 of the LP which, among other things, seek to improve road safety and provide adequate off-street parking. The proposal would also be contrary to Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as it has not been adequately demonstrated that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

[name] agree that each dwelling would be afforded a very limited amount of private outdoor space, and that its usability would be somewhat constrained by the nearness of boundary walls and fences and the general layout of each resulting plot, the provision would nonetheless exceed the minimum standards set out in Policy D6 of The London Plan 2021. This policy establishes the quantitative benchmark for private amenity space, and in the absence of any compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposed arrangement would result in unacceptable living conditions, I am not persuaded that the amount of space should be regarded as poor.

However, due to the close proximity of the existing boundary wall and the planned fencing to the rear ground floor windows and door of the proposed new unit, the outlook from these openings would be severely restricted. The entire rear elevation would face a solid wall at very close quarters, creating an oppressive and enclosed environment. Although there would be some outlook to the front, this would not compensate for the exceptionally poor one to the rear. As a result, the proposal would fail to provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for future occupiers, contrary to Policy 7 of the LP which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that the amenity and quality of life of existing and future residents is not adversely impacted.

The appeal property is a semi-detached, two-storey dwelling occupying a visually prominent position at the entrance to the cul-de-sac, opposite [name]. The surrounding area is characterised by two-storey semi-detached and short terraced rows of simple architectural form, featuring symmetrical fenestration and modest detailing. Properties are uniformly set back behind small front gardens, many adapted for off-street parking, which maintains a coherent building line. Regular plot widths and consistent spacing between dwellings create a strong sense of even rhythm and order along the street scene.

The proposed dwelling would replicate the design, materials, and roof profile of the host property, resulting in a short terrace that reflects an established pattern of development within the locality. Terraced groupings are already a defining feature of the street scene, and the proposal would not disrupt the prevailing building line or rhythm. While the plot would be relatively compact, the dwelling would maintain appropriate separation from neighbouring properties and would not appear visually cramped or incongruous when viewed in context. As such, the development would integrate successfully with its surroundings and preserve the area’s character.

For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, and in regard to this main issue, it would not conflict with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the LP. Amongst other things, these require new development to respond to distinctive local building forms and patterns of development with respect to established scale, massing, and rhythm of the surrounding physical context. Paragraph 11 of the Framework

The Council cannot currently demonstrate the supply of housing sites as required by the Framework. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d)(ii) indicates that, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this case, the proposal would result in harm to highway safety and the living conditions of future occupiers. These would be significant and enduring, and in the case of highway safety matters be potentially impactive to life. I therefore afford them substantial weight. The benefits of the scheme, including the addition of one unit and associated economic activity during construction and occupation, would be limited in scale and largely temporary. While the shortfall in housing supply is acknowledged and attracts moderate weight, the contribution of one dwelling would make only a minimal difference to addressing that deficit.

Although the appeal site occupies a sustainable location, the proposal would not deliver affordable housing and would result in the identified harms. When assessed against the Framework as a whole, these adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the development. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

[name] have found for the appellant on the third main issue, this is as a result of a lack of harm which would be a neutral matter. There are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, that would attract sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan with which the appeal scheme would conflict owing to my findings on the first and second main issues. It is for these reasons that I recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.