Appeal 6000600

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted revised plans during the course of the appeal process. The revised plans detail fundamental changes to the proposal in terms of differing bicycle and bin storage structures and positions, increased landscaping and communal space, and revised parking arrangements. As such, the I find the proposal to be materially different from the original planning submission.

If this appeal were to be determined on the basis of the revised plans there would be a risk that parties wishing to comment on the proposed changes would be deprived of the opportunity to do so. In this regard and in the interests of fairness, I have therefore determined this appeal on the basis of the original drawings.

The main issues are:

the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining properties, with specific regard to noise and activity, and whether or not the proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers having regard to the provision of private amenity space; and,

whether the proposed development would make adequate provision for waste; and,

whether the proposed development would be consistent with planning policies which seek to reduce dependence on private vehicle use.

The effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site is comprised of a large, detached two-storey property with single storey extension to the rear, located in a predominantly residential area. The site has a modest frontage and large rear garden.

To the east of the site is the [name], to the west No [address], a residential dwelling which is a locally listed non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). To the south lies the [name]/Elizabeth/Liberty railway and [address] and the street scene to the north.

The current parking arrangements appear to be incorporated into an informal area of hardstanding which extends to both boundaries and some way into the garden space. The proposal before me details ten parking spaces which would be located to the rear of the appeal property and uniformly spaced along the boundary shared with No 86.

Formalising the ten parking spaces along the rear boundary to the garden is likely to have a noticeable impact on neighbouring occupiers. The most immediate effect would be the increase in vehicle movements in this area, which may lead to higher levels of noise and disturbance through engine noise, doors slamming and comings and goings, particularly during early mornings and late evenings when residents may be arriving or leaving. This activity can disrupt the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring gardens and outdoor spaces.

I therefore consider that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining properties, with specific regard to noise and disturbance, and this would be contrary to Criteria (iii) of Policy 8 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (LP).

The proposed outdoor communal space would be to the immediate rear of the proposed single storey extension and rear access to the accommodation. Adjacent to this space would be both the access lane and the proposed ten parking spaces. I find the proposed communal space to be disproportionately small for the potential number of occupiers of the property. As such it would offer limited opportunity for future occupiers to enjoy any meaningful outlook and would result in an oppressive and cramped area, inadequate to meet the needs of future occupiers.

There are no express standards for communal outdoor space within LP policy 8 it does outline at section vi., that communal space should be large enough for all the dwelling’s occupants to use simultaneously. Whilst the internal space achieves this policy requirement, I find that the proposed external space does not.

I therefore consider that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of future occupiers, with specific regard to amenity space, and this would be contrary to Policies 7 and 8 of the (LP).

On the first main issue I conclude that the proposed development is contrary to Policies 7 and 8 of the LP. These policies seek, amongst other things, to protect the amenity and living conditions of occupiers of surrounding property and ensure that development delivers suitable standards of amenity and living conditions for future occupiers of the development.

The development proposes a combined bin and bicycle store (the store) abutting the rear boundary of the appeal site. The evidence indicates that the location of the store would be well in excess of the 30m from the property advocated by the Council guidance. The officer report estimates the store to be 66m from the roadside.

In its proposed location, I find that the provisions for waste and cycle storage to be neither convenient or easily accessible particularly for any potential elderly or disabled residents.

As such, on the second main issue I conclude that the proposed development is contrary to [name] 8, 24 and 35 and Policy D6 of the London Plan (March 2021). These policies seek, amongst other things, that development provide convenient, easily accessible waste disposal storage and safe, accessible cycle storage.

The appellant has submitted a planning obligation as part of the appeal preventing the owner and any occupier from applying to the Council for a parking permit. The Council’s statement outlines that the unilateral undertaking has been forwarded to the Council’s Legal team to review and comment on its acceptability. I have not had sight of these comments. However, in the present circumstances not being able to secure an on-street parking permit would not prevent the owner or any occupier from utilising the large parking area to the rear of the property. I find that the overprovision of parking at the appeal site would encourage car use.

Policy 24 of the LP says that London Plan maximums standards apply across the borough. During my site visit I found the site to be close to both local facilities and public transport. Notwithstanding this the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) for the area is 2, which is below average. As such, there would be conflict with T6.1 of the London Plan which specifies a maximum car parking provision of up to 0.5 spaces per unit.

On the third main issue I conclude that the proposal would not be consistent with Policies 8 and 24 of the LP and T6.1 of the London Plan, which seek to reduce dependence on private vehicle use.

The proposal includes ten parking spaces located to the rear of the appeal site. During my site visit I observed the existing access arrangements and boundary treatment to each side of it. These access arrangements reflect the design of entrances within the area generally.

There are no proposed changes to the access or egress arrangements, however a security gate is proposed approximately [address], broadly in line with the rear elevation of the existing single storey rear extension.

The proposed increased level of occupation of the site, would result in an increase in vehicle movements. However, there is little before me to show that the access would cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Therefore, on the fourth main issue I conclude that the proposal is compliant with Policies 23 and 24 of the LP, T4 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal would provide residential accommodation for which there is a recognised need, as set out in Policy H9 of the London Plan 2021 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council have confirmed it cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites for housing. As a result of the shortfall in supply and delivery, policies related to the location and supply of housing are deemed to be out of date.

In these circumstances, Paragraph 11d and footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) require that 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 as a whole.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of a new accommodation that would assist in meeting need in the area, provide support for local facilities, and the creation of jobs during the construction phase.

However, for the reasons given above and from the information before me I have found that there would be material harm arising through noise and disturbance, inadequate living conditions and parking provision. The support for the principle of development within the Framework is countered by the importance it places on the provision of well-designed development that provides a high level of amenity for existing and future users. In this instance, the harm would be both significant and enduring. When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

I conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.