Appeal 6001236

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on a) highway safety with specific regard to on and off-street parking; and b) the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address], within a well-established residential area. Marked on-street parking bays have been introduced in the vicinity, indicating existing pressure for parking and the need to manage it to maintain safe highway conditions, despite there not being a controlled parking zone in place. The site is located within an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 0, signifying very poor access thereto. It is therefore reasonable to expect that future occupants would be heavily reliant on private vehicles to access services and other facilities for day to day living. Policy 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2016–2031 2021 (LP) requires minimum parking provision for sites with PTALs of 0–1.

The proposal indicates the provision of two parking spaces to the front of the appeal site for both the proposed dwelling and the existing. Access to the parking space for the proposed dwelling would be directly on the junction of [address] and [address], overlapping with an existing pedestrian crossing point. The limited size of the parking space would struggle to accommodate any sizeable vehicle that would not hamper or overhang the pedestrian footway.

Several manoeuvres would be necessary for a vehicle to access and egress the site, increasing the likelihood of conflict between them and another vehicle or a pedestrian, with the added impedance to the free flow of traffic when a vehicle would need to stop in the carriageway to commence the parking manoeuvres. The close proximity to the aforementioned junction between two roads has the potential to exacerbate these situations since vehicles could be passing in multiple directions whilst these manoeuvres could be taking place.

Whilst the proposed vehicle crossover serving the host property would, in isolation, be acceptable, its installation would nevertheless result in the loss of an existing marked on‐street parking bay. During my morning site visit, I observed that a high level of on‐street parking already takes place in the area, and it is reasonable to assume that this demand increases during peak periods. Furthermore, double yellow lines outside the appeal site restrict parking opportunities in the immediate vicinity, thereby intensifying reliance on the remaining bays.

The displacement of vehicles onto the surrounding highway would also increase the potential for unsafe or ad‐hoc parking. Vehicles parked outside marked bays could force pedestrians, including those with wheelchairs or pushchairs, to step into the carriageway to navigate around obstructions. Inconsiderate or obstructive parking is a foreseeable consequence of the proposal, and this would further heighten risks to both vehicular and pedestrian safety.

The appellant has indicated a willingness to accept a condition to provide a parking space at the rear of the site. The procedural guide for planning appeals advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve or revise a scheme. The appeal, therefore, must be determined based on the proposal originally considered by the Council and made available for public consultation.

As a result, the proposals would have an unacceptably harmful effect on highway safety by reason of inadequate parking provision. This would be contrary to Policy T6 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies 23 and 24 of the LP which, amongst other things, seek to improve road safety and provide adequate off-street parking. The proposal would also be contrary to Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as it has not been adequately demonstrated that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appeal property is a semi‐detached, two‐storey dwelling occupying a visually prominent position. The surrounding area is characterised by pairs of similar semi‐detached dwellings of simple and uniform architectural form. Properties share a broadly consistent set‐back behind small front gardens, many of which have been adapted for off‐street parking. These elements, together with regular plot widths and spacing, contribute to a coherent building line and a clear repeating rhythm within the street scene.

The proposed dwelling, although of marginally reduced scale, would closely follow the design cues of the host property, including its roof form, proportions and materials. It would be both slightly stepped down and set back from the main frontage, creating a clear visual transition between the existing pair and the proposed unit. This approach is consistent with the established pattern of development locally, where a number of corner plots accommodate two‐storey side extensions or additions that read as subordinate elements to the main house. In this context, the proposal would appear as a natural continuation of that built form and would not appear discordant or visually intrusive.

The spacing retained to the rear and flank boundaries, together with the slight set back from the established building line, would prevent the development from appearing cramped when viewed from either street. The resulting short terrace would remain proportionate in scale and massing to the surrounding built form, and the proposal would sit comfortably within the wider streetscape.

For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, and in regard to this main issue, it would not conflict with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the LP. Amongst other things, these require new development to respond to distinctive local building forms and patterns of development with respect to established scale, massing, and rhythm of the surrounding physical context. Paragraph 11 of the Framework

The Council cannot currently demonstrate the supply of housing sites as required by the Framework. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d)(ii) indicates that, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this case, the proposal would result in harm to highway safety. This would be significant and enduring, and potentially impactive to life. I therefore afford it substantial weight. The benefits of the scheme, including the addition of one unit and associated economic activity during construction and occupation, would be limited in scale and largely temporary. While the shortfall in housing supply is acknowledged and attracts moderate weight, the contribution of one dwelling would make only a minimal difference to addressing that deficit.

Although the appeal site occupies a sustainable location, the proposal would not deliver affordable housing and would result in the identified harm, which would conflict with the relevant parts of the Framework, section 9 specifically. This adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the development. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

[name] have found for the appellant on the second main issue, this is as a result of a lack of harm which would be a neutral matter. There are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, that would attract sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan with which the appeal scheme would conflict owing to my findings on the first main issue. It is for these reasons that I recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.