Appeal 6001194

The appeal is dismissed.

While the description of development above is taken from the application form, I have had regard to the submitted plans which include a first-floor rear extension.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area; and • highway safety with particular regard to on-street car parking provision.

The site is located on the southern side of the junction of [address], a cul-de-sac, and [address]. To the rear of the site is [address]. The site contains a two-storey end of terrace dwelling with an outbuilding to the rear. Most of the site is enclosed by a boundary wall.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and includes a mix of dwelling types and sizes. [address], there are two-storey terraced properties and semi-detached properties. To the north of the site on the western side of [address] are two-storey terraced properties. To the east of the site on [address], is a mix of semi-detached bungalows, chalet-style bungalows and two-storey dwellings. To the south of the site are two-storey detached dwellings on [address] and a detached chalet-style bungalow on [address].

Despite the varying dwelling styles, a key characteristic of the area is that dwellings are set back from the junctions and frontages, although the amount of setback varies on the eastern side of [address]. The setbacks provide a sense of spaciousness and openness along both [address] and [address], which positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal is for a two-storey dwelling to the side of the existing dwelling at [site address] . To the front, the proposal would align with the front elevation of No 1. Its flank wall would be located approximately 0.7m from the pavement on [address]. The proposed dwelling would be deeper than the existing dwellings on [address] including the proposed extended host dwelling at No 1.

The site sits on a prominent corner plot. Its position, combined with the proposal’s two-storey height and overall depth, would result in the proposal being visually prominent and dominant in the streetscene. This would undermine the existing pattern of development in the surrounding area and disrupt the openness of views along [address] and the spaciousness of the junction itself. Although the proposal would be set back from the [address] boundary by 0.7m, in the context of the much deeper setbacks in the vicinity, this does not minimise the harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed first-floor rear extension to the existing dwelling at No 1 would sit alongside, and connect to, the first-floor part of the new dwelling. Together the rear projections would form a twin hipped roof which would be visible from beyond the site. The roof form together with the width of the first-floor element would result in a prominent and incongruous form of development within the site itself and its surroundings.

The proposed dwelling would be narrower than that of the host dwelling and other dwellings in the terrace. Whilst the lesser width is not an issue in and of itself, it does reflect the narrowness of the site. The width of the proposed dwelling together with its proximity to the [address] boundary would result in a cramped form of development.

The Council referred to a dismissed appeal for a similar development on a corner plot at [address], to the northeast of the site. That appeal scheme was proposed to be built up to the boundary, whereas the flank wall of the proposal would be set back 0.7m from the boundary which differentiates the current proposal from that appeal scheme. For this reason, I give the appeal decision limited weight.

Reference is made to the approval of three planning applications for new dwellings on corner plots within the borough. In each of the proposals, the flank wall of the new dwelling would project forward of the building line of properties on the adjoining streets. In addition, the new dwellings would be set back less than 1m from the back edge of the adjacent footway. None of the application sites were in the area surrounding the appeal site therefore I did not visit the sites, but I have reviewed the documents submitted.

In the case of the development at [address], the built form appears to mirror that on the opposite corner, at [address], which is referred to in the officer report and was acceptable on that basis. The development at [address] was allowed on appeal with the Inspector finding the visual impact to be acceptable as the development would not disrupt any strong building line and due to a “lack of uniformity around junctions and where side elevations front streets”. The development at 17 The Ridgeway was found to be acceptable, particularly given the comparable dwelling allowed on the corner plot opposite. Accordingly, the contexts of the three sites differ from the appeal site and, as such, are not directly comparable or relevant to the proposal. For these reasons, I give limited weight to these schemes.

The external materials proposed would match the existing dwelling. The ridgeline and eaves height together with the windows and doors of the proposal would align with the existing dwelling. While these elements would reflect certain characteristics of the streetscene, they would not be sufficient to mitigate the harm identified in relation to the character and appearance of the site and its wider context.

Reference is made to the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) specifically in regard to the 0.[address] boundary. The SPD states that it is guidance for residential extensions and alterations and not for other types of buildings such as new houses. Accordingly, I give very limited weight to the SPD when considering the new dwelling.

Reference is also made to Havering Local Plan (HP) policy 10 which supports garden and backland development subject to criteria. I find no conflict with this policy in respect to this main issue.

The Council has raised no issue with the single storey ground floor rear extension to the existing dwelling. I have no compelling reason to reach a different view to the Council regarding this aspect of the development.

I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and therefore conflicts with HP policy 26. This policy seeks to ensure high quality design through, amongst other things, supporting development which respects, reinforces and complements the local streetscene and developments which respond to the building line of the surrounding physical context. It is also contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which sets out that development should be sympathetic to local character and maintain a strong sense of place. The Council has also referred to London Plan (LP) policy D4. This policy seeks to deliver good design through design tools rather than site or area specific design considerations and hence I find no conflict with it in respect to this main issue.

In accordance with HP policy 24, the new dwelling would require a minimum of 1 on-site parking space. The existing property does not benefit from any on-site parking provision, and no on-site parking provision is proposed for the new dwelling. However, there are bus stops on [address], including opposite the site, with services to Romford and Gidea Park Stations. Cycle parking would be provided on the site. Accordingly, the site is in an accessible location.

[address] is a residential cul-de-sac. It does not appear to be heavily trafficked and vehicle speeds would be limited due to the nature of the road. There is visible paintwork on the pavements on both sides of the street indicating the presence of marked bays although they do not appear to have been re-painted for some time. At the time of my site visit, there were three vehicles parked within the bays on the pavements with other spaces available.

I am satisfied that the additional parking space required for the new dwelling could be accommodated in the area without adversely affecting on-street parking through displacement. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate the extent or severity of any local parking problems which would warrant the dismissal of the appeal on highway safety grounds.

In conclusion, the effect of the proposal on highway safety with particular regard to on-street car parking provision would be acceptable. There would be some conflict with HP policy 24 and LP policies T6 and T6.1 which refer to and set out car parking requirements including for residential development however, the conflicts attract negligible weight for the reasons given. The proposal would not conflict with HP policy 23 and LP policy T4 insofar as they seek to ensure safe and efficient use of the highway. The proposal generally meets the requirements of the Framework.

The Council has confirmed it cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Furthermore, the Council’s 2023 [name] results confirm delivery over the test period of only 61 percent. Accordingly, paragraph 11d)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 in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies identified at its footnote 9.

The proposal would make an efficient use of land by contributing towards and addressing the shortfalls in the Council’s housing supply and delivery positions in an accessible location. It has also been put forward that the dwelling would be energy efficient, the size of the rear garden is acceptable and there is sufficient provision for refuse and cycle storage. The dwelling would also have step free access and meet or exceed space standards. As the development is for a single dwelling, when taken together, the benefits identified weigh moderately in favour of the development.

The proposal would not result in harm to highway safety therefore this would be neutral in the planning balance.

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.

Having regard to the specific matters raised in paragraph 11d)ii and its associated footnote 9, and paragraph 135 as referenced earlier, the benefits are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

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.