Appeal 6001031

The appeal is dismissed.

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding land ownership, but these are private matters between the relevant individuals and not within my jurisdiction. Additionally, the Council does not raise concerns regarding the matter. While this may have implications for whether the correct ownership certificates have been completed, having regard to my conclusions on the main issues in dispute between the appellant and the Council, I see no reason to consider the matter further and have determined the appeal as set out.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook from the rear garden; and • the effect of the proposal on vehicular access and parking provision for [address].

The site is situated within a cul-de-sac between Nos 29 and [address]. It has a narrow frontage that widens to the rear and is occupied by two sheds. The immediate locality is characterised by two-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings of a consistent architectural style. Many have two-storey side extensions which results in limited separation between neighbouring dwellings. The prevailing roof forms within the street are pitched and hipped. However, No 31 is distinguished by the presence of a flat-roof two-storey side extension.

The proposal would include a two-storey flat-roof dwelling positioned between the front elevations of the dwellings at Nos 29 and 31. However, the gap is very tight such that the new dwelling would be appear overly narrow and awkwardly close to the garage at No 29 and the porch at No 31. As a result of its width, position and relationship with the adjacent properties, it would have a cramped and contrived appearance that would erode the visual coherence of the existing streetscene.

Furthermore, the front elevation of the new dwelling would arc around to the side elevation facing No 29 with a parapet feature following its curved alignment. While this seeks to draw on the pitched and hipped roof forms of neighbouring properties, its design would nonetheless be alien within its context. Additionally, a parking space proposed to the front of the site would be positioned at an angle directly in front of the garage serving No 31. Were this space to be occupied as intended, it would restrict access to that garage. Both of these aspects of the proposal would draw attention to and reinforce the cramped and contrived appearance of the development.

The proposal would reflect local tones and finishes and thereby be consistent with neighbouring properties. I also note that the front elevation would be set back from the street and the overall height of the proposal would be below the height of neighbouring built forms. While these elements of the proposal go some way towards reflecting certain characteristics of the streetscene, they are not sufficient to mitigate the issues identified.

For the reasons given, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. It conflicts with London Plan (LP) policy D5 and Havering Local Plan (HP) policies 7 and 26 which promote high quality design including that which respects, reinforces and complements the local streetscene. It also conflicts with paragraph 135(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), which seeks to maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit. The Council has also referred to HP policy 10, but it does not directly relate to matters of character and appearance and hence I find no conflict with it in respect of this main issue. Living conditions of occupiers of [address]

Part of the two-storey element of the proposal would sit immediately adjacent to the side boundary with No 29. The proposal steps back from the shared boundary before extending towards the rear of the site then reduces in height to a single storey. No 29 is wedge shaped and widens as it extends towards the rear boundary. The dwelling there is set away from the shared boundary due to its attached garage. A shed is located to the rear of the garage.

The proposal would be visible from the rear garden of No 29 due to its proximity and height. However, the angle of the shared boundary and size of the rear garden at No 29, together with the limited length of the two-storey element immediately adjacent to the boundary, would minimise the impact on outlook from the rear garden. Therefore, the proposal would not be visually intrusive or have a significantly adverse impact on the outlook from the garden.

For these reasons, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 29, with particular regard to outlook from the rear garden. It would not conflict with HP policies 7 and 10 which seek to protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties from unacceptable loss of outlook and significant adverse impacts on amenity. The proposal would not conflict with paragraph 135(f) of the Framework insofar as it relates to developments providing a high standard of amenity for existing users.

The proposal includes a car parking space for the new dwelling in compliance with the parking standards set out in HP policy 24. However, as outlined above, the position of the proposed parking space would impede vehicular access to the garage at No 31, preventing its effective use for parking. It would also narrow the available space directly in front of the garage, thereby limiting its ability to function as a parking space, with the remaining land constrained by soft and hard landscaping. Consequently, in practical terms, the arrangement would result in the loss of two parking spaces for No 31. This conflicts with HP policy 24, which would require either 1 or 1.5 parking spaces to be retained depending on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling.

However, the site is in an accessible location with bus stops located a short walk away. In addition, there are facilities including a supermarket, primary school and shops located within close proximity. Furthermore, this section of [address] does not appear to be heavily trafficked and vehicle speeds would be limited due to it being a cul-de-sac. There also appears to be potential for on-street parking. Moreover, firm evidence has not been presented to demonstrate that there are significant local parking problems which might warrant the dismissal of the appeal on highway safety grounds.

For these reasons, the effect of the proposal on vehicular access and parking provision for No [address] would be acceptable. While there would be conflicts with HP policies 7 and 24 and LP policy D5, which set out the parking standards for developments, and seek to ensure the quality of life for existing residents is not adversely impacted and the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design, the conflicts attract negligible weight for the reasons above.

The appellant states that the Gross Internal Area (GIA) would amount to 59 sqm, whereas the Council considers it to be “in the region of 57 sqm”. Policy D6 of the LP requires a minimum GIA of 58 sqm for a dwelling of the type proposed. No evidence has been provided by the Council to support the lower figure. Therefore, there is nothing apparent before me which suggests that appellant’s GIA calculation is incorrect. Overall, I am satisfied the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupants with regard to internal floorspace. This is consistent with LP policy D6, which seeks to secure high-quality housing with adequately sized rooms and functional, well-designed layouts.

The Council has confirmed it can only demonstrate 3.4 years housing land supply. Furthermore, the Council’s 2023 [name] results confirm delivery over the test period of only 61 percent. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged. It sets out 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 identified at its footnote 9.

The proposal would make an efficient use of land by contributing towards addressing the shortfalls in the Council’s housing supply and delivery positions in an accessible area. It has also been put forward that the dwelling would be sustainably constructed, readily adaptable and generate positive impacts from the construction process and the occupiers engaging with local amenities. Moreover, the development would be a self-build scheme. However, as the development is for a single dwelling, when taken together, these benefits weigh moderately in favour of the development.

Conversely, I have found that the proposal conflicts with paragraph 135 of the Framework, which is referenced specifically in its footnote 9. In that context, and for the reasons given earlier, I find that the harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area attracts significant weight. The adverse impacts of the scheme thus significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, and the Framework does not indicate in favour of the development.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.