Appeal 6000566

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 the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposed development on, the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] , with regard to outlook and privacy, and whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for its occupants with regard to privacy.

The appeal site occupies a back land position to the rear of the frontage development on [address], [address], [address] and [address]. The detailed appearance of the frontage developments varies but they are predominantly comprised of two storey semi-detached dwellings with long rear gardens.

The site is occupied by a one and a half storey dwelling and a single storey outbuilding which is set within a generous curtilage which is accessed by a lane leading to [address]. Notwithstanding the commercial premises on one boundary of the appeal site, the host dwelling appears as an anomaly as backland development within the wider context of established rear gardens.

The appeal dwelling (host dwelling) is set at a notably lower level than the surrounding frontage developments and comprises a substantially larger plot compared to surrounding gardens. This contributes significantly to a visually observable spacious character within the area and on the site. [name] recognise that a portion of the open space is used for vehicular parking, this use does not itself detract from the contribution to openness made by the space.

The existing outbuilding is used as a residential annexe, and its proximity to the host dwelling would be expected given its functional reliance. In contrast, the creation of an independent residential unit within the same setting and context would be at odds with the character of the established pattern of development in the area, where dwellings retain an expanse of space and gardens around them.

The proposed dwelling would appear confined within the corner of the existing site with the host dwelling occupying a large portion of one boundary and the gardens of neighbouring properties forming the others. Indeed, the development would project behind the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling with an extremely narrow access path to the front door. The proposed development would therefore appear cramped within its context and would fail to respect the established urban grain, harming the character and appearance of the area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. I therefore find conflict with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan and D3 of the London Plan which, among things, aim to ensure that development respects the distinctive character of the area and respond to the local pattern of development. I also find inconsistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where, among other things, it seeks to ensure developments add to the overall quality of an area and maintains a strong sense of place.

The existing conditions on site mean that the front of the outbuilding projects over the dining room window of the host dwelling. Given that pedestrian access would be afforded through a footpath that runs directly in front of this window, the occupants of the host dwelling would be subject to a potential significant loss of privacy through the comings and goings of the occupants of the proposed dwelling. I am also mindful that even if the privacy impact could be mitigated through the introduction of a visual barrier such as a fence as suggested by the appellant, this would result in a significant loss of outlook from a portion of the windows within the dining room, a main habitable room. This would have the potential to result in harm to the living conditions of existing occupants of the host dwelling by way of loss of outlook.

Due to the position of the existing dormers to the front and rear roof slopes of the host dwelling, there would be no direct views towards the proposed dwelling or its garden. Any views towards the proposal would be afforded only through oblique angles from the dormer windows and would not be unexpected in character in a suburban context. In any event, the dormers appear to serve non-habitable rooms and as such, in the event that views were attained, they would be unlikely to be for prolonged periods of time. As such, I find that the proposed development would not result in unacceptable living conditions for its occupants through loss of privacy.

I acknowledge that the appellant is the occupant of the host dwelling and therefore does not object to the proposal. However, the arrangement and harm arising from it would be permanent. This would conflict with the aims of Policy 7 of the HLP as well as the Framework which aim to secure acceptable living conditions for both existing and future occupants.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the living conditions for the occupants of [site address] (the host dwelling) through the loss of privacy. As such, I find conflict with Policies 7 and 26 of the HLP which, amongst other things, aim to ensure that developments do not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook. I also find inconsistency with the Framework where it seeks to ensure developments have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

I acknowledge the appellant’s position that the appeal proposal would represent a more efficient use of land through an increased residential density in a sustainable location. However, whilst the Framework supports development that makes efficient use of land, it also notes that the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and securing well-designed and healthy places should be considered. For the reasons above, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and living conditions of adjacent occupants which would not be outweighed by the efficient use of land of an additional dwelling. I therefore attach limited weight to this position.

The Framework requires at paragraph 11 d) that policies which are most important for determining the application are regarded as out-of-date (as identified at Footnote 8) where a Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or where the [name] (HDT) indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years. In such an instance, paragraph 11 d) ii) of the Framework states that planning 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.

In this instance, the HDT (2023) results show a substantial under provision of delivered dwellings in the previous 3 years at 61%. In accordance with paragraph 11 d) ii), this would mean having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, and securing well-designed places. The parties were contacted for comment in relation to the HDT position.

Given the extent of the shortfall in the delivery of housing, the delivery of a single additional dwelling would undoubtedly make a positive contribution towards meeting the housing need in an area which is concluded to be a sustainable location. However, the overall contribution would be limited given the modest quantum of development. Nevertheless, the development would also provide some limited social and economic benefits both during and post construction which would also attract some limited weight in support of the proposal.

The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area as well as the living conditions of adjacent occupants. This would be significant and enduring, and I therefore afford this harm significant weight. When assessed against the Framework as a whole, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the development. Therefore, the proposal is not sustainable development.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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