Appeal 6000935

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed plans show the addition of a rear extension and loft conversion to the dwelling which is not reflected in the description of development. The evidence before me indicates these elements have been approved separately by the Council and would be constructed prior to the conversion of the house as proposed. The Council appears to have assessed the application on this basis, and I have proceeded accordingly.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family-sized housing in the Borough; • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants of the ground floor flat, with regard to outlook and light; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety on [site address] .

The appeal relates to an existing 3-bedroomed semi-detached dwelling with a parking area to the front and a long rear garden which is located in a predominately residential area. The proposal would subdivide the existing property into two, 2-bedroomed flats.

Policies LP5 and LP6 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (the RLP) collectively seek to ensure that the Borough’s housing stock provides for a range of housing needs and sizes, with a focus on the provision of larger, family-sized homes that are of 3 bedrooms or more. The Council states that the Havering and Redbridge Local Housing Needs Assessment Update (2023) (the LHNA) identifies a significant need for homes of 3-bedrooms or more, accounting for the greatest need across both affordable and market housing tenures in the Borough.

To ensure the stock of larger family-sized homes is preserved, Policy LP6 sets out that the Council will only support their conversion into smaller self-contained units where several criteria are met. Criterion d) requires appropriate car and cycle parking provision in accordance with the London Plan (2021) standards.

No changes are proposed to the existing parking arrangement, where two on-plot parking spaces would be provided to the front of the building. As the site is in an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level rating of 3, this exceeds the maximum parking provision of one space set by Policy T.61 of The London Plan (2021) for the type of development proposed. However, the proposed parking arrangement would not be materially different to the existing situation and, thus, there would be no material harm. The appellant has not shown any on-site cycle storage, however, from the evidence before me and what I saw on site, I am satisfied that there is sufficient external space to accommodate four on-site cycle parking spaces in accordance with the requirements of the London Plan. This matter could be addressed by a suitably worded condition in the event the appeal was to be allowed. On this basis, the proposal would meet criterion d).

Criterion f) requires the conversions provide at least one larger family sized home of 74sqm and a minimum of 3 bedrooms on the ground floor with access to a dedicated rear garden. While the ground floor flat would have access to its own rear garden, it would not have at least 3 bedrooms and thus would lead to an overall loss of family-sized accommodation on the site.

I note the scheme would provide two, two-bedroomed, four-person flats which would exceed the [name] Standards1 (NDSS) for units of this type. Both flats would also be provided with their own dedicated garden areas. However, neither would have at least three-bedrooms and would not provide a suitable living environment for growing families which is prioritised in the RLP. Whilst noting the appellant’s comments about the surrounding highway network, the site’s location does not point to it being unsuitable for families with children. I note the LHNA identifies a need for smaller units, however, while this is a benefit of the development, the greatest identified need is for 3 or more bedroomed houses. As the appeal scheme would result in the loss of an existing 3-bedroomed family-sized dwelling, which the RLP specifically seeks to protect, any benefit of providing an increased choice and mix of housing would be outweighed by this loss.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of a family-sized dwelling and would therefore have a detrimental effect on the supply of such housing within the Borough. This is contrary to Policies LP5 and LP6 of the RLP which together, and amongst other things, promote the provision of larger family-sized homes to meet the housing needs of the Borough.

The ground floor flat would have a roughly L-shaped kitchen, living, dining room which is shown as having dividing partitions but would be largely open plan. The kitchen would be served by north-east facing, glazed patio doors and would lead into the 1 Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (2015) living/dining area which is located broadly centrally within the ground floor. Save for two flat sky lights, this area would not have any windows.

The Council concedes in its officer report that the living/dining room would benefit from natural light via the roof lights. Given the size of the room, provision of two roof lights and fact that light would also be provided from the kitchen patio doors when the dividing partitions are open, I am satisfied that this area would be afforded with adequate levels of daylight and sunlight. I have no substantive evidence before me that the rooflights would be fixed shut or that these openings would not provide adequate ventilation for a room of this size either.

However, the rooflights would be positioned above the eyeline of future occupiers and thus would provide extremely limited outlook. Although the kitchen patio doors would provide some outlook when the partitions are open, given the depth and shape of the room, the overall outlook from the living/dining area would be very limited for a room of this size, which would make for an oppressive living environment. As the main habitable space within this flat, this would not be conducive to a high-quality living environment or provide adequate living conditions.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants of the ground floor flat, with regard to outlook. This is contrary to Policy LP29 of the RLP and Policy D6 of the London Plan which together, and amongst other things, seek to ensure high standards of housing accommodation and high-quality of internal space to ensure comfortable and functional layouts for future occupiers.

The dwelling is situated on [site address] which is a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 40mph. While the appeal site is not served by a dropped kerb, I observed during my site visit that the dwelling has a forecourt to the front which provides space for two vehicles to park off the highway. From the evidence before me, the forecourt does not appear to provide sufficient space for vehicles to turn within the site and therefore the existing arrangement results in vehicles reversing onto or off [site address] to enter and exit the site. This is similar to other parking arrangements that I observed on both sides of the street.

As set out above, no changes are proposed to the existing parking arrangement as part of this appeal. Two on-plot parking spaces would be provided to the front of the building to serve the two flats. While noting the site is not served by a dropped kerb, the concerns raised about the effect of vehicles reversing on/off [site address] and the proximity of the site to the junction with [address], the proposed parking arrangement would be no different to the existing situation. As such, there would be no materially different effect on the surrounding highway network or increased risk to highway users as a result of the appeal scheme.

The Council accepts that the increase in residential units on the site is unlikely to result in any material change to the operation of the site or its impact upon the highway. As no additional parking provision is proposed on the site, there would be no intensification of the use of the forecourt as a result of the development, and subsequently no increase in congestion either.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude the proposed development would not have a materially different effect on highway safety on [site address] . This accords with Policies LP22 and LP23 of the RLP and Policies T2 and T4 of the London Plan insofar as they support the operation of the existing transport network, require that developments do not increase road danger and seek to ensure the provision of appropriate car parking to serve developments.

While the Council has referred to the ‘[name] in its reason for refusal, it has not explained which part of the document it has identified any conflict with. Nevertheless, given my above conclusions this is not determinative in respect of this

The application was partly refused on the basis that in the absence of appropriate mitigation, the Council could not be satisfied that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European site as defined by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). [name] found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in all other regards it would have been necessary for me to examine this matter in further detail. However, as I have found that the scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be a [name] on the integrity of the European Site or undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

I note the appellant’s comments in relation to exceeding the NDSS, providing adequate external amenity space, maintaining the character and appearance of the area, incorporating energy efficient construction, appropriate sustainable drainage and EV charging, amongst other matters. However, compliance with the development plan or any other relevant standards in these respects are neutral factors.

Notwithstanding my findings on the effects on highway safety, I have found that the appeal scheme would result in the loss of a family-sized dwellinghouse, which would adversely affect the supply of family-sized housing in the Borough, and would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, contrary to the aforementioned policies of the RLP and London Plan. This is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council concedes that it has failed to satisfy the [name] with housing completions at 39% of its target and therefore paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. Which in this case means granting permission 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, having particular regard to key policies including making effective use of land in meeting the identified need for different types of housing.

On the one hand, the scheme would make a more effective use of land to deliver one net additional, smaller, dwelling in a residential area which is in relatively close proximity to services, facilities and public transport. The development would therefore make a small but beneficial contribution to the choice and mix of homes in the Borough. However, given the scale of the development, any social, economic or environmental benefits associated with the delivery of one net additional dwelling would be relatively limited, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework and the Council’s housing land supply position. Therefore, the weight attached to these benefits overall is limited.

On the other hand, the development would result in the loss of a family-sized dwellinghouse which would fail to meet the prioritised housing needs for the Borough and would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. This is contrary to the Framework, which expects a high standard of amenity to be achieved for future users and the delivery of homes to meet an area’s identified housing need and the needs of different groups in the community, including families with children. Consequently, this attracts substantial weight.

As such, in the specific circumstances of this case, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework, when taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.