Appeal 6000610

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 appellant has indicated that the proposal is intended to be a self-build dwelling, and that consequently the development would be exempt from the general [name] condition, as set out in paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

I am mindful that the Officer report makes no reference to the appeal scheme as a self-build proposal, and it has also not been incorporated within the description of the development. Furthermore, and as discussed in the main issues, there is no effective mechanism before me to ensure that the proposal would be occupied as a self-build dwelling. In the absence of such a mechanism to secure the development as self-build, it is necessary to consider biodiversity as a main issue.

The main issues are therefore; • whether the proposal makes adequate provision for [name]; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and, Appeal Planning Officer 6000610 • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties at [site address] and [address], with particular regard to light and outlook.

[name] (BNG) is a mandatory requirement of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Schedule 7A), as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021. Unless exempt, the appeal development would be subject to the mandatory BNG, which requires developers to deliver a BNG of at least 10%. In the case of the present appeal scheme, the biodiversity matrix and other biodiversity information required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Order) 2015 (DMPO) Article 7(1A) have not been submitted. The proposal is put forward on the grounds that, as a self-build dwelling, it qualifies for exemption from BNG requirements.

[name] have had regard to the appellant’s statement of intent to occupy the new dwelling, I am mindful that the appeal has not been accompanied by a planning obligation which would be required in order to secure the dwelling as self-build, as defined in Section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (the Act), as amended. Consequently, the delivery of development which accords with the exemption cannot be guaranteed or secured. A condition to secure the dwelling as self-build would lack sufficient robustness and would not meet the tests for conditions as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) related to enforceability.

It has not therefore been demonstrated that the proposed scheme would be, or could be secured as, a self-build development. That being so, the development cannot benefit from the relevant exemption from the legal requirements relating to BNG.

I acknowledge that some habitat enhancements are suggested in the submitted [name] such as insect hotel and bird boxes. However, the [name] has not been submitted and therefore the minimum information required in relation to BNG as set out in Article 7(1A) of the DMPO has not been provided with the proposal. Based on the submitted evidence, I cannot therefore conclude that the measures accompanying the proposed development would achieve at least the 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat which would be required.

In view of the above, and the omission of the necessary information, the proposal would not accord with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the DMPO.

The appeal site is situated within a residential area in a prominent corner position on the junction with [address] and [address]. The proposal would entail subdividing the rear garden of [site address] . The garden tapers and widens towards the rear boundary and runs parallel with [address]. It is enclosed by a close boarded fencing approximately 1.8m in height, established vegetation and trees along the road boundary. The existing double garage, Appeal Planning Officer 6000610 proposed to be demolished, is situated along the rear garden boundary and is currently accessed from [address].

The detached and semi-detached dwellings along [address] are arranged along a staggered building line that follows the curvature of the road. It is a tree lined road with clusters of dwelling types that are relatively consistent in terms of their original design and appearance.

The depth of the garden at No 10 contributes to a sense of spaciousness and openness within the street scene, however, this is limited given the boundary treatment that encloses the rear garden and the established trees within the garden.

Policy 10 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) (HLP) refers to residential development on garden and back land sites. Part of the policy, criteria vi, relates to [address] and Emerson Park Character Areas as designated on the [name], neither of which relate to the appeal site. Nevertheless, the principles outlined in the policy aim to ensure development is well designed which is relevant to this appeal case.

The existing pitched roof garage, set against the elongated side elevation of the neighbouring property at [address] which spans almost the full width of the rear garden, adds to the sense of built form within the garden and, to some extent, restricts longer range views. Based on the evidence and my own observations, I am satisfied that the plot is of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed dwelling without appearing cramped and contrived. [name] recognise that the proposed dwelling would have a larger footprint than the existing double garage, it would not significantly reduce the depth of the rear garden or diminish its spacious character.

The proposal would incorporate off street parking and a small area of landscaping to the front of the dwelling consistent with the established character of the surrounding area. The design and appearance of the proposed dwelling would closely reflect that of No 37, reinforcing the sense of a clustered group of similar dwelling types within the street scene. Therefore, it would not appear as an incongruous feature.

The proposed dwelling would align with the position and siting of No 37. [name] accept that this would not conform to the staggered building line characteristic of the street, its position at the end of the road combined with the existing boundary treatment of the rear garden of No 10 and established planting, would limit views of its wider relationship within the building line, particularly from [address].

The appellant refers to [address] (planning application Ref.P1468.99) where planning permission for a detached corner infill dwelling was granted approximately 25 years ago, drawing comparisons with the appeal site in terms of separation distance from the host dwelling. They also cite [address] (planning application Ref.P1822.16) and 2A and [address] (planning application Ref.P0240.22) where the separation distance is around 2m. I have not been provided with the full details of these cases, however, I note from the information provided that [address] has a different context and physical arrangement, with the neighbouring property (No 2) with the garden situated to the side of the property. 2A and [address] also differ in context and physical arrangement, as [address] is shown as a retail unit. In any Appeal Planning Officer 6000610 event, I have considered this appeal on its own merits and the site specific circumstances.

The proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and accords with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the HLP which seek amongst other matters to ensure well designed development that preserves the character and appearance of the area and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which seeks high quality design.

The Council have raised concern that the proposal would result in an increased sense of enclosure for the occupants of No [site address] and overshadowing and loss of light for the occupants of No [address].

The outlook from No 10 already incorporates views of the side elevation of the existing garage and the neighbouring dwelling at No 37. Nevertheless, given the rear garden’s adequate depth and width, the proposal would only marginally reduce this depth, retaining approximately 15 metres of separation and therefore having a comparatively limited additional impact on any sense of enclosure.

The proposed two storey dwelling would not project beyond either the rear or front elevation of the neighbouring property at No 37. The two porthole windows on No 37’s side elevation, serving the ground floor dining room and facing the appeal site, would already experience restricted outlook and light due to their position and relationship with the existing garage. The proposal would not significantly increase this effect.

The submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment ([name], 28 May 2025) confirms that the proposal would not result in a notable reduction of daylight and sunlight as set out in the BRE guidelines for the relevant windows of No 37. I note that the Council have not provided evidence to contradict these findings, and I see no reason to disagree with the technical conclusions.

The neighbouring property at [address] has raised concern regarding loss of light to their garden and property and overbearing impact. However, given the orientation, proposed boundary treatment and distance of separation between the properties the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the occupants of No 8 in terms of outlook. Although the proposal would be visible at an oblique angle, the mostly open outlook from the rear garden and window would be unaffected. The first floor windows on the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling, facing towards the rear garden of No 8 serve the two ensuites and bathroom and are shown as obscured glazed on the plans. This could be secured by condition in the interest of both protecting privacy for occupants of the appeal site, and occupants of neighbouring properties.

For these reasons, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of the neighbouring properties at [site address] and [address] and accords with Policy 7 of the HLP and the Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Appeal Planning Officer 6000610

The appellants contend that a Certificate of Lawfulness (reference: D0530.24) granted at the site for an outbuilding providing a cinema room, games room, gym, sauna and office is a realistic fallback position. Although, the proposed outbuilding would have a larger footprint than that of the appeal proposal, it is single storey and therefore not directly comparable to the impacts of a two storey dwelling as proposed. It was also permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) Class E as a building for purposes incidental to a dwelling. The appeal proposal relates to a separate residential dwelling and therefore is not comparable in terms of its use or assessment of planning merits. I therefore afford no significant weight to this fallback position.

Concerns have been raised by a neighbour relating to car parking and an increase in traffic and congestion. I note that there are [address] parking spaces proposed and provision for cycle parking. There was also on street parking capacity available on the surrounding roads. Whilst there may be an increase in parking attributable to the proposal, I am satisfied that it would not be of a quantity that would result in an adverse impact on the existing capacity of street parking or result in a negligible effect on traffic and congestion levels in the locality.

Concerns have also been raised by third parties regarding noise and disturbance during construction. This would be inevitable but would only be for a temporary period and could be controlled by limiting working hours and a Construction and Transport Management Plan.

Third parties have also raised concern that drainage, local services and facilities would be unable to cope with the marginal increase in population, however there is no evidence to indicate this. Matters relating to drainage would be dealt with separately under other legislation.

The appellants have indicated that the proposal is to be a self-build dwelling, although the Officer report makes no reference to the appeal scheme as a self-build proposal, and it is not incorporated within the description of the development. I am mindful that there is no effective mechanism before me to ensure that the proposal would be occupied as a self-build dwelling, and I am therefore unable to attach any significant weight to the benefit of intending to provide a self-build dwelling. Nevertheless, the proposal would provide a new dwelling making a modest contribution to the local housing need requirements and accords with the objectives of the Framework to boost the supply of dwellings.

The appellant contends that the Council did not visit the appeal site before making its decision. However, I do not find this to be a matter which is critical to my assessment of the planning merits of the case.

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] 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 Appeal Planning Officer 6000610 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 Council concede that they cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites for housing with the [name] indicating a 3.4-year supply of deliverable housing sites based on 2024 figures. The Housing Delivery Test (2023) results also 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 shortfall in both supply of deliverable housing sites and delivery of housing, the delivery of a single dwelling would undoubtedly make a positive contribution towards meeting the housing need in an urban area and which is concluded to be a sustainable location, albeit that the 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.

Despite the proposal being indicated for a self-build home, the absence of a mechanism to secure the dwelling for this specific purpose means that this is a factor which does not weigh in support of the proposal, and the consequent failure to comply with the statutory provisions for BNG must attract significant negative weight.

I recognise that the proposal would accord with the development plan with regards to character and appearance and living conditions. Furthermore, the proposal would provide some economic and social benefits which are consistent with the Framework and overall, these must be afforded limited weight. However, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, I am satisfied that the adverse impacts associated with the proposal as set out, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits arising from the development. Consequently, the proposal is not sustainable development and planning permission should not be granted.

For these reasons, I 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.