Appeal 6000599

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 issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal site comprises the existing dwellings which address [address], together with their long gardens which have a secondary frontage on to [address] at the rear. Detached, single storey buildings and garages exist on this secondary frontage, an arrangement which is similar to other homes on [address]. The proposed dwellings would be located towards the end of the rear gardens and would front [address], and by virtue of this position, the proposed development would have the greatest effect upon the character of [address].

I observed [address] to be of a clearly mixed character comprising both semi-detached and terraced two-storey dwellings. I noted the existing terrace of four dwellings constructed within the rear gardens of 5–[address], and that visually they successfully integrate with the established character of the nearby semi-detached dwellings in [address] due to the relationship with development at the far end of the close. The existing semi-detached dwellings do not have an adverse impact on the established garden sizes of the frontage properties, and do not therefore appear as a form of garden development.

By contrast, the proposed introduction of the two semi-detached dwellings on the appeal site would conflict with the established character and urban grain of development. Notwithstanding that the width of the proposed dwellings would not in itself be harmful, being generally reflective of that of the nearby terraced dwellings, the deeper footprint and general position forward of the existing nearby terrace on to [address] would appear at odds with the existing character and give an overall cramped impression.

The detailed design, including the roof form, would not reflect that established by the terrace and other existing development, which would contribute to the appearance of a more piecemeal form of development set amongst the various single-storey outbuildings and structures. Although comparatively consistent with the scale of the nearby terrace on [address], the proposed two-storey height would significantly exceed that of the existing adjacent development, resulting in a visually dominant and isolated built form, detached from the established position and grouping of dwellings. This incongruity would erode the spatial rhythm of [address] and undermine the existing spatial openness to the rear of properties on to [address] through the introduction of development into this location within the close.

For these reasons, I conclude that the siting of the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, I find conflict with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (adopted 2021) and the provisions of the Framework. These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development respects the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has addressed matters related to the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and highway matters, which were raised by interested parties in the various representations to the planning application. However, I note that further to the recent appeal decision related to residential development on land to the rear of [site address] , these issues have not been incorporated by the Council within the reason for refusal. Given my conclusions on the main issue, they are not determinative within this appeal, and I have not therefore needed to address them.

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.

The Council has indicated that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing sites as required by the Framework, with a figure of 3.4 years highlighted in the Council’s submissions. Furthermore, 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.

Given the extent of the shortfall in both the supply of housing sites and delivery of housing, the delivery of two additional dwellings 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. Although the proposed development would make an efficient use of land, there is no indication that improvements to the design character of the area resulting from the removal of existing development perceived to be of a poor visual standard, could only be achieved by this scheme. Nevertheless, I accept that 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.

As set out in the main issue, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, which 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.