Appeal 6001190

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed reference in the description to a previous application number as this does not relate to the act of development.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the: • supply of family housing; • living conditions of the occupants of [address] particularly regarding noise and disturbance; and • living conditions for future occupants of the first-floor flat particularly regarding external amenity space provision.

Policy 9 of the Havering Local Plan (HP) supports the sub-division of existing residential properties to self-contained homes where the existing house being subdivided has no less than 120sqm of original floor space.

The property benefits from permissions to extend the dwelling. The proposal incorporates these approved enlargements. There is no substantive evidence to support the Appellant’s assertion that previous appeals clarify the position on how the extensions should be taken into account. I therefore rely on the wording of the policy itself which explicitly requires the existing house being subdivided to have no less than 120sqm of original floorspace. In this case, as the original dwelling has a floorspace of less than 120sqm, the proposed development would be contrary policy 9.

While each proposal is to be considered on its merits, the Council’s concerns about potential precedents are justified in this instance by the shared characteristics of similar properties in the surrounding area and the risk of collective loss of smaller housing impacting negatively on the needs of the area.

The proposal would provide a minimum of one family unit of 3 or more bedrooms as required by policy 9(ii). However, as this provision is required in conjunction with the original dwelling being no less than 120sqm, it does not justify the loss of a smaller dwelling.

The appeal decision at [address], Romford is not material as it considered a different policy in the HP and related to a conversion to Houses in [name].

The proposal would have an adverse effect on the supply of family housing. This would conflict with HP policy 9 which provides for the subdivision of houses with no less than 120sqm of original floorspace.

The proposed layout would result in the living room of the first-floor flat being adjacent to the bedrooms of No [address]. This would give rise to noise and disturbance which would impact the existing occupants at No 7. I do not have any specific acoustic information to form a judgement on the severity of likely impacts. Accepting an argument at face value that HP policy 9(iv) would be met through accordance with the building regulations, rather than better layout design, would severely undermine its utility.

The development would result in unacceptable effects on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] particularly regarding noise and disturbance. This conflicts with HP policy 9 which requires that the living areas of new properties do not abut the bedrooms of adjoining properties.

No external amenity space is provided for the first floor flat. London Plan (LP) policy D6 seeks a minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space for 1-2 person dwellings. The Appellant refers to the property being in walking distance of public green spaces however no evidence was provided in support of this. Regardless, there are no apparent site constraints that would justify the lack of amenity space provision, nor are the Appellant’s assertions about the needs of different types of occupiers justified.

The proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupants of the first-floor flat particularly regarding external amenity space provision. It conflicts with HP policy 7 and LP policy D6 which seek to ensure high-quality living environments for residents of new developments through the provision of external amenity space.

The Council refers to harm to the living conditions of the future occupants of the development arising from the juxtaposition of a bedroom with the neighbouring living room. However, HP policy 9(iv) is explicit in requiring only that living areas of new properties do not abut the bedrooms of adjoining properties. The Council’s concern therefore extends beyond the scope of the policy. In any event, this matter is not determinative, particularly as the appeal is being dismissed on other, substantive grounds.

The proposal would have an adverse effect on the supply of family housing, result in unacceptable effects on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] particularly regarding noise and disturbance, and would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupants of the first-floor flat particularly regarding external amenity space provision. The associated development plan conflict is with the plan as a whole.

The Council has confirmed it can only demonstrate 3.4 years of housing land supply and the [name] results found a shortfall in the level of housing delivery compared to the housing requirement over the measured three years. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (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 key policies identified at its footnote 9.

The proposal would make an efficient use of land by contributing towards addressing the shortfall in the Council’s housing supply and delivery positions. However, as the development would provide a net gain of one residential unit, this benefit only weighs moderately in favour of the development.

Elements of the scheme which accord with the development plan policies are neutral in the planning balance.

I have found that the proposal would result in the loss of a smaller dwelling for which there is an identified need. Furthermore, it would harm the amenity of existing and future occupiers. This conflicts with paragraph 135(f) of the Framework which seeks to ensure developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Paragraph 135 is one of the key policies referenced in footnote 9 to which I must have particular regard. In that context, and for the reasons given earlier, I find that the harms attract significant weight. The adverse impacts of the scheme thus significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In conclusion, 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.