Appeal 6001227

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This is the subject of a separate Decision.

Although the application form provides limited information about the site location, both the decision notice and the appeal form include a site address. Following my site visit and review of the appeal site, I have confirmed the correct address, and the banner heading has been updated accordingly.

The proposed dwelling is designed to match the scale, appearance and layout of the adjacent property at No. 8A, which was previously approved by the Council under reference 23/01159/FULL. During my site visit, I observed that No. 8A appears to have been fully constructed.

Planning permission has been granted for the construction of a single storey outbuilding for the ancillary use of No. 8A, under reference 25/00756/HSE. Notably, this outbuilding was approved on the same parcel of land that now forms the appeal site. This outbuilding has not been constructed and the permission remains extant. The appellant considers that this represents a fallback position.

The appeal site is located within the wider [name] (the Estate), which the Council has identified as a non-designated heritage asset (NHDA). This status is disputed by the appellant. The Council has highlighted appeal decisions1 where the Estate was considered by those Inspectors as a NHDA. Conversely, the 1 Refs: APP/Z5060/D/24/3348784, APP/Z5060/D/24/3346688 and APP/Z5060/W/24/3341823 appellant has referred to other appeal decisions2 in which the Estate was not considered to be an NDHA. Within this context, I have considered whether the Estate constitutes an NDHA for the purposes of paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework).

The Planning Practice Guidance3 advises that clear and up to date information on non-designated heritage assets should be accessible to the public to provide greater clarity and certainty for developers and decision-makers. It also states that up to date information about NDHA should be included in the local historic environment record.

The supporting text to Policy SPP6 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2020-2034 (2024) (the BDLP) refers to the preparation of a [name] that will help to “preserve the area as a non-designated heritage asset”. I recognise that the use of the word “preserve” could be interpreted as implying that the Estate has already been identified as a NDHA. However, there is also no evidence before me that the anticipated [name] has been agreed, formalised, or adopted, or that any other structured assessment has confirmed NDHA status on the Estate. Furthermore, while this supporting text provides context and explanation, there is no wording in Policy SPP6 that expressly confirms the Estate as a NDHA. [name] recognise that NDHAs can be identified through the decision-making process, I cannot be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before me to do so in this case. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to the historic importance of the Estate, I do not consider it to constitute a NDHA for the purposes of this appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on car parking within the surrounding streets.

The street scene is characterised by small blocks of symmetrical short terraces, typically two to three storeys in height, with pitched roofs, front parking areas, wide verges and small areas of open space. The wider estate is relatively low density, with generous rear gardens and an ordered layout that frequently frames open green spaces, street trees, green corners, courts and pocket parks.

The appeal site forms part of the residential garden that was formerly associated with No. [address]. It is located towards the widened, rounded turning head of a banjo-style cul-de-sac. It forms part of three terrace rows which are arranged around the highway, each presenting a continuous frontage and consistent roofscape. Many of the dwellings feature common shared features such as red brick or rendered facades, tall brick chimneys and tiled pitched roofs. Owing 2 Refs: APP/Z5060/W/24/3345112 and APP/Z5060/W/21/3267687 3 Paragraph: 040 [name]: 18a-040-20190723 to their arrangement in straight, uniform rows, the buildings generally follow the same building line, with only limited variation created by bay projections. This high level of uniformity gives [address] a balanced and cohesive appearance, with most dwellings holding an equal presence within the street scene.

The proposed development would substantially intensify the residential use of the rear amenity space that was formerly associated with No. [address], thereby disrupting the marked balance and rhythm described above in terms of the surrounding pattern of development. The scheme would introduce a further subdivision of an already reduced plot, resulting in a dwelling that would occupy land that is notably more constrained and compact than the prevailing garden sizes within the area. In doing so, it would depart from the established pattern of generous rear garden space that underpins the layout of the overall area. The staggered pattern of development would also continue to disrupt the consistency of the building line, further diminishing the ordered and coherent arrangement of dwellings and private amenity spaces that contributes to the character of the street scene. Although the proposed dwelling would not be readily visible from the public highway, as it would be partly screened by No. 8A, it would nevertheless be clearly visible from a range of private vantage points, including the rear elevations and gardens of neighbouring properties. As such, even as a backland development, the development would remain a prominent feature which would exert a noticeable and harmful influence on the coherence of the surrounding residential environment.

I have considered that the adjacent dwelling at No. 8A, features a similar design, scale and footprint to the proposed development. [name] recognise that it reflects comparable architectural characteristics, I am not persuaded that its presence has been sufficient to alter the prevailing design qualities of the wider area, which remain defined by uniform plot proportions, consistent building lines and a spacious overall layout. Given the limited extent of development, it is considered that the cumulative effect of introducing two additional dwellings within the former rear garden of a single original plot would represent a pronounced departure from this established pattern of development. The replication of the design features found at No. 8A within the proposed scheme would not mitigate the harm identified above.

The appellant has referred to the appeal decision at 24 Lynett Road4. I recognise that this decision was previously relied upon to justify the development of No. 8A due to perceived similarities in context, siting and design. However, while I acknowledge the potential relevance of this appeal decision, the proposed development exists in a materially different context. Whereas the earlier schemes involved the subdivision of an original plot, the proposed development would increase the number of backland dwellings from 1 to 2, resulting in an increased cumulative impact. Given the already heightened level of intensification, I am not persuaded that the [address] decision justifies the proposed development. Likewise, the conversion of No. 8 into two one-bedroom flats5 represents a very specific form of intensification, involving works to an existing dwelling. These proposals differ materially from the proposed development, which would introduce a further residential unit. 4 Ref: APP/Z5060/W/22/3308125 5 Ref: 24/00971/FULL

I have also considered the strategic policy context for development in this location. The appeal site is located approximately 800m away from the boundary of Chadwell Health District Centre, which is a form of town centre. While all town centres have the potential for residential growth, [name] has been identified in Table A1.1 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) as an area of high residential growth potential. This is a broad strategic-level categorisation which requires boroughs to seek opportunities for residential development in and around town centres.

Policy H2 of the LP states that well-designed new homes on small sites should be proactively supported. Furthermore, the supporting text confirms that the incremental intensification of existing residential areas within PTALs 3-6 or within 800m distance of a town centre boundary is expected to play an important role in contributing towards the housing targets for small sites. This can take a number of forms, such as new build and infill development. These developments should generally be supported where they provide well-designed additional housing to meet London’s needs. The policy also requires the preparation of design codes for small sites to ensure that new homes are proactively supported and appropriately designed. While the [name] (June 2023) offers support for backland development, it also recognises that most design codes for terraced housing require new development to align with the existing building line, so as to not negatively impact the character of the street. In this context, the proposed development would fail to integrate with its surroundings, instead perpetuating a design approach present only in a single existing dwelling (No. 8A), which is insufficient to alter the established urban grain of the area. As support under Policy H2 is conditional on achieving high-quality design, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in a well-designed new home, in terms of its position and layout.

Policy SD6 of the LP states that the vitality and viability of London’s varied town centres should be promoted and enhanced by identifying locations for housing-led intensification to optimise residential growth potential. It advises that the potential for new housing within and on the edges of town centres should be realised through mixed-use or residential development that makes best use of land, capitalising on the availability of services within walking and cycling distance, and their current and future accessibility by public transport. Although the appeal site is in a location where such intensification could in principle be appropriate, the cumulative impact of introducing a second backland dwelling within the former rear garden results in a form of development that does not fit satisfactorily with the site and its surroundings. As such, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would make the best use of the land.

In reaching this view, I have taken into account several appeal decisions6 cited by the appellant, which they consider demonstrates that backland proposals which depart from established patterns of development may be acceptable. However, those decisions relate to developments in different boroughs and urban contexts. The evidence does not clearly demonstrate that those developments occurred in areas which are characterised by the same distinctive regularity of design that is evident around the appeal site. As such, meaningful comparisons cannot be drawn, nor can it be concluded that the effects of the proposal before me would be 6 Ref: APP/B5480/W/25/3361205, APP/B5480/W/24/3355037, APP/D5120/W/24/3344127, APP/B5480/W/24/3339230, APP/D5120/W/23/3323286, APP/R5510/W/24/3346298, APP/Q5300/W/21/3269222 acceptable. Each case must be assessed on its own merits, and the presence of other developments in differing contextual settings does not, in itself, justify the harm I have identified arising from the current scheme.

The appellant has referred to the supporting text (3.1.7) of Policy D1 of the LP, which notes that respecting character and accommodating change should not be seen as mutually exclusive. However, the text also emphasises the need to ensure an appropriate balance is struck between existing fabric and any proposed change. Notwithstanding that Policy D1 is strategic and intended to inform plan-making, I am satisfied that the proposal would not achieve this balance, and my findings remain unchanged.

In summary, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the general character and appearance of the surrounding area, which would be visually at odds with the established street scene. Owing to its siting, scale and overall form, the scheme would not successfully integrate with the prevailing pattern of development. While the policy context lends support to well-designed intensification in this general area, the shortcomings of the scheme mean it would not be supported under either Policy H2 or Policy SD6 of the LP.

In conclusion, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would not respond sensitively to local distinctiveness or integrate with the existing character of the area, and as such it would not demonstrate high-quality design. Accordingly, it would be contrary to Policies SP2, SPP6, DMD 1 of the BDLP, and Policy D4 of the LP. It would not be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework.

The Council also cites conflict with several other policies. Policy DMD 4 of the BDLP is primarily concerned with the protection of Heritage assets and archaeological remains, while Policy HC1 of the LP relates to Heritage conservation and growth. As discussed, based on the evidence before me, I do not consider that [name] meets the criteria for an NDHA. Policy D1 of the LP is directed at borough-level area assessments and plan-making, rather than the detailed evaluation of small site proposals. As no relevant wording has been identified, these policies have not been referenced in this conclusion.

Policy T6 of the LP requires that car parking should be restricted in line with levels of existing and future public transport accessibility and connectivity. It clarifies that car-free development should be the starting point for proposals which are well-connected by public transport, with developments elsewhere designed to provide the minimum necessary parking. The policy also requires that [name] and [name] should be submitted alongside all applications which include car parking provision, indicating how the car parking will be designed and managed, with reference to Transport for London guidance. Policy 6.1 specifies that new residential development should not exceed the maximum parking standards set out in Table 10.3 of the LP. For developments with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2, the maximum parking provision is up to 0.5 spaces per dwelling.

The appeal site is located within a [name]. It is not disputed between the parties that the appeal site has a PTAL of 2, indicating a poor level of public transport accessibility. The plans indicate that no off-street parking is proposed for the dwelling. This accords with the parking requirement set out in Policy T6 of the LP, allowing zero parking provision for a single dwelling. As a result, it is possible that future occupiers could seek to park on-street, which may place additional pressure on the local highway network.

Although no [name] and Management Plan has been submitted, this is only required where parking spaces are proposed. The appellant has referred to two appeal decisions7 in which Inspectors found that one- and two-bedroom flats were unlikely to be occupied by car owners. However, I note that the proposed development is not a flat and therefore falls within a different urban context.

The Council has indicated that the area around the appeal site is an area of parking stress and have raised concerns that the cumulative impact of development could be significant. Nonetheless, the appellant has expressed a willingness to accept a “car-free development” condition, which could prevent future occupiers from obtaining on-street parking permits. This would limit the potential for additional car ownership associated with the proposed development and thereby reduce the likelihood of further pressure on local parking capacity.

Notably, when planning permission was granted for No. 8A, the small scale of that development and its sustainable location were considered sufficient to allow it to proceed without any off-street parking provision. Furthermore, no parking stress survey was required at that time. Given the similarities between that scheme and the current proposal, I am satisfied that any matters relating to parking provision could be appropriately managed through the imposition of a suitable planning condition were the appeal to be allowed.

Notably, given the small scale of the development and the sustainable location, it was found when permission was granted for No. 8A, it was permitted without off-street parking provision. Additionally, no parking stress survey was required for that scheme. Given the similarities between that scheme and the proposed development, I am satisfied that any issues relating to parking provision could be addressed through an appropriate planning condition were the appeal to be allowed. Alternatively, a planning obligation could also be used to secure a similar mechanism.

In conclusion, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on car parking within the surrounding streets. Accordingly, it would adhere to the London Plan’s maximum car parking standards, in compliance with [name] 2 and SP8 of the BDLP, as well as Policies T6 and T6.1 of the LP.

The Council has raised concerns about harm to neighbouring amenity, insofar as the proposed development may introduce a sense of overbearing, overshadowing and loss of daylight to the rear gardens of adjacent properties. [name] acknowledge these concerns, the Council has not formally objected on these grounds in their decision notice. Accordingly, and based on my site visit, I have found no reason why this consideration should weigh or fall against the proposal. 7 Ref: APP/Z5060/W/23/3334389 and APP/Z5060/W/23/3332042

There is an extant planning permission8 for the erection of a large, single-storey ancillary outbuilding on the appeal site, with a footprint of approximately 50 sqm. The evidence indicates that this represents a credible fallback position. However, while the outbuilding would serve an ancillary residential function, the appeal proposal would introduce a new, independent residential use, thereby intensifying activity across the site as a whole. This would result in a greater presence of built form and associated domestic paraphernalia within an area that has already undergone residential intensification.

Within this context, I do not consider that the fallback outbuilding would provide a significantly superior architectural solution to the appeal scheme. Even if constructed with its approved flat-roofed form, it would not result in a materially worse outcome, given its limited effect on the vernacular of the area as an ancillary residential building. Accordingly, while the fallback position carries limited weight, it does not outweigh the concerns arising from the overall intensification and change in character that the proposed development would introduce.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with the Framework. The Housing Delivery Test results indicate that it has delivered 66% of its housing requirements over the latest 3 year period. As such, it is not contested between the parties that paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged.

I recognise that the proposed scheme would provide a modest boost to local housing supply within an area that is unable to demonstrate a Framework compliant supply of deliverable sites. As a one-bedroom dwelling, it would help to meet demand for a sought-after unit type. The site is also located within reasonable proximity of [name] and the amenities and services available there would be relatively accessible. The Housing in London 2024 report identifies that small scale developments are a potentially significant source of new housing land supply in London. The associated map indicates that delivery of such sites within this Borough has historically been very low. Accordingly, I attach moderate weight in favour of approval.

Nonetheless, these benefits must be balanced against the identified harm. The scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. This represents a significant failing and a clear conflict with the relevant policies, to which I afford substantial weight.

In relation to paragraph 11 d), I have had particular regard to the following considerations and their effect on key policies. The scheme would direct development to a sustainable location and make effective use of land. However, it would not secure a well-design place and would not provide affordable housing. I afford substantial weight to these shortcomings. In my judgment, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The scheme would therefore not be sustainable development within the meaning of the Framework. 8 Ref: 25/00756/HSE

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.