Appeal 6001353

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • whether or not the scheme should make any contribution towards affordable housing provision; • whether or not the scheme would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy; and • the effect of the proposal upon social infrastructure.

The appeal site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is considered inappropriate unless it is an exception identified in paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework.

An exception identified in paragraph 154 g) of the Framework is for the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) whether redundant or in Appeal Decision: 6001353 continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The Framework defines PDL as land that has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land. The Council contend that the site is not PDL because the main structures on it are temporary.

The site comprises a tarmac access, parking and turning area, a brick-built toilet block, a metal shuttered former ambulance garage and a portacabin accessed via a brick staircase. There is a lawned area to the rear which contains an electricity metre cabinet.

Case Law1 has established 3 tests to assess whether a temporary or moveable structure is a building: size; permanence, and physical attachment. The portacabin and garage are prefabricated and small enough that they could have been brought to the site completed and installed rather than constructed on site. It follows that both are capable of being moved. However, a brick staircase up to the portacabin, and a concrete pad on which the garage stands indicate a degree of permanence. Furthermore, aerial photographs of the structures from 1999 indicate they have been in place for over 25 years.

Although wooden skirting around their bases prevented me from seeing whether they were fixed to the ground, both the garage and portacabin are connected to an electricity supply. Also, the associated fixed infrastructure including the hardstanding, toilet block, electricity meter cabinet, drainage covers and concrete base for the ambulance garage give the site a developed and permanent, rather than temporary, character. Consequently, I consider they are buildings rather than temporary structures and the site is therefore PDL.

There are buildings adjacent to the appeal site to the north, comprising RAF Hornchurch Heritage Centre and a pair of semi-detached houses on [address]. To the rear there are car parking spaces and an area of open space which is part of the housing development on [address]. To the south the land is open Green Belt mainly overgrown with bushes, brambles and small trees and with a network of footpaths. The site is enclosed by a close board wooden fence along the northern boundary, mature hedges and trees along the rear boundary and a concrete post and wire fence along the southern edge which abuts a footpath.

Because of its developed frontage, the site relates more closely to the built development to the north than the open space to the south, marking the edge of the settlement on the appeal site side of the road, although housing continues south on the opposite side of the road. The proposed houses would replace the single storey flat roofed structures with 2 pairs of 2 storey semi-detached houses. They would cover a larger footprint and have a greater volume than the existing buildings, extending slightly further back into the site on to the existing lawned area and slightly forward of the existing building line. They would also be more visually prominent because of their height. They would thus reduce openness in both spatial and visual terms. 1 Skerrits of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No. 2) [2002] [name] 5569 Appeal Decision: 6001353

Nonetheless, the site currently contributes little to the openness of the green belt because of its small size, developed and enclosed character and the backdrop of adjacent buildings. Consequently, whilst the proposed development would reduce the openness of the Green Belt to some degree, the harm would be limited and not substantial and thus accord with paragraph 154 g) of the Framework.

Both parties also assessed the proposal against paragraph 155 of the Framework. However, given that I have concluded that the proposal is not inappropriate development in accordance with paragraph 154 g) of the Framework, I have no need to pursue this matter further.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would involve the redevelopment of PDL and would not substantially harm the openness of the Green Belt. The scheme would therefore comply with one of the exceptions for development within the Green Belt and would not be inappropriate development. It would therefore accord with the objectives of the Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

Policy 4 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) (LP) requires housing development of 10 or more houses, or with a site area exceeding 1000 sqm, to provide at least 35% affordable housing. According to the appellant’s Design and [name] the site area is 1230 sqm. However, no affordable housing is proposed.

The appellant has referred to paragraph 65 of the Framework, which advises that affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments and is therefore a material consideration of significant weight. Nonetheless, the Framework advice on this matter predates the adoption of the LP and I would expect it to have been considered during the Local Plan Examination and [name] in which the Inspector concluded the Plan was sound.

I note that extracts of the [name] refer to the persistent under delivery of housing and the need for an immediate review of the plan. However, no evidence has been provided to me that the failure to meet housing targets is because Policy 4 placed an undue financial burden on developers, or that the need for affordable housing has diminished since the Plan was adopted. Given that the Framework states the planning system should be plan-led, and based on the information submitted, I consider that, in this case, Policy 4 of an adopted plan carries more weight than paragraph 65 of the Framework.

The appellant has provided no evidence contesting affordable housing need in the area. A viability assessment (VA) has been submitted which calculated that providing 1 affordable unit on site would lead to a loss and therefore be unviable. The Council has not commented on the VA. However, I have reviewed it against National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which sets out the government’s recommended approach to assessing viability. The NPPG advises that evidence of the inputs used in an assessment should be provided and that they should be related to the inputs used in the VA that informed the LP, or if not that the differences are explained. The VA provides summary figures and makes no reference to the inputs used. Appeal Decision: 6001353

The VA calculates a loss which appears to be based on the purchase price of the site, rather than a benchmark land value. The NPPG advises that under no circumstances will the price paid for land justify failing to meet the relevant policy requirements. I therefore accord the VA little weight.

The strip of land identified for [name] improvements is part of the appeal site and I see no reason to exclude it from the site area calculation to bring it under the affordable housing requirement threshold, as suggested by the appellant.

The appellant contends that the Council has been inconsistent in applying affordable housing policy and has provided several examples of previous decisions. I note that the proposed development at [address] was refused, amongst other things, on affordable housing grounds. In a subsequent appeal2 the Inspector did not address the issue of affordable housing because the appeal was dismissed due to insufficient parking provision. That scheme was for 1 house, whereas the proposal before me is for 4 dwellings, which according to the policy requirement could deliver an affordable unit on site. [address] scheme is not therefore comparable to the proposal before me. I note the Inspector’s comments regarding seeking the Council’s view on paragraph 65 of the Framework were the issue of affordable housing to be addressed. I did not consider that necessary to determine the weight to attach to the Framework.

[address] scheme was for the demolition of existing housing and construction of new dwellings with a net gain of 3 and is not therefore comparable to the appeal proposal. In that case the officer’s report referred to a previous refusal and appeal decision, but no details have been provided to me of those previous decisions and whether affordable housing had been addressed, or in the other examples provided by the appellant for which decision notices and an appeal decision have been submitted, but not the officer’s reports that assessed the applications. In any event each case must be considered on its own merits, having regard to the planning context of the site.

The proposed development would not provide affordable housing, and no compelling evidence has been provided to justify waiving the affordable housing requirement on viability grounds or a lack of need. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 4 of the LP which requires affordable housing on residential developments with a site area over 1000 sqm.

Policy 16 of the LP seeks to prevent the loss of social infrastructure where there is a defined need for it and no proposal to replace it. It also requires an assessment of redundant premises suitability for other social infrastructure, for which there is a defined need, before an alternative development will be considered, taking into account feasibility, viability and site constraints.

The former ambulance station would almost certainly have become redundant at the time the nearby hospital site was redeveloped for housing, some years ago. I expect that the NHS would have ensured that other hospitals would not have been left short of ambulance provision before closing the site and that the site’s suitability to meet other NHS needs would have been considered before selling it. 2 Appeal ref: 6000341 Appeal Decision: 6001353

The site is too small to accommodate some of the examples of alternative social infrastructure cited in the LP, such as sports facilities, places of worship or a burial ground. However, other uses such as a nursery or, as the appellant noted, a dentist surgery could be accommodated on the site. There has been little convincing evidence or research of potential social and community type users that may have a defined need and that could fit within the policy requirements on this site. The fact that it was not purchased for that type of use is not evidence of a lack of need, or that it would not be feasible or viable as an alternative use. Consequently, I am not satisfied that there has been sufficient assessment of alternative developments for social infrastructure, as required by Policy 16 of the LP.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the loss of social infrastructure has not been justified, and the proposed development would conflict with Policy 16 of the LP which seeks to ensure residents have access to a range of social infrastructure facilities.

Policy 7 of the LP requires residential development to ensure the amenity of future residents is not adversely affected and the supporting text states that areas of private gardens should not be excessively overlooked.

A pair of semi-detached houses on [address] front onto the appeal site side boundary, separated from the boundary fence by a front path. Both houses have small obscured glazed bathroom windows and large first floor bedroom windows facing on to the rear lawn which would form the rear gardens for the proposed houses. The first floor window on the nearest house would directly overlook the proposed rear gardens with an unacceptable impact on privacy. The bedroom window on the adjoining house would have less of an impact because it faces the end of the lawn and the rear boundary hedge.

Overlooking between first floor windows and neighbouring gardens is not uncommon, but views are generally oblique between neighbouring properties or separated by rear gardens where houses back onto each other. In this case views would be directly across the rear gardens from a short distance, and, in my view, the degree of overlooking would be unacceptable.

I have considered whether planting along the side boundary could effectively screen the gardens. However, the height and density of planting needed to ensure an adequate level of privacy to occupants of the proposed development would reduce the outlook from, and light to, the windows of houses on [address], thus harming the living conditions of occupants of those houses.

The appellant has suggested that other gardens within the adjacent housing estate are overlooked from the lift core in a block of flats. In that case, I would expect any views to be fleeting as people pass between floors and not therefore comparable to the appeal proposal. In any case, overlooking elsewhere does not provide justification for allowing the harm that I have identified.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would conflict with Policy 7 of the LP which seeks to protect the privacy of future residents. Appeal Decision: 6001353

A representation raised concerns regarding the layout of the proposed development and pedestrian safety. However, these are not matters over which the Council has raised a concern, and I have found no reason to disagree.

The scheme would not provide the necessary affordable housing contribution, would not meet requirements for social infrastructure and future occupants would be unacceptably overlooked when using their rear garden. These harms and related policy conflicts should weigh to a substantial extent against the scheme and as such the proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the Framework and has consistently failed to meet the [name]. Consequently, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. It requires 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 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would provide benefits in terms of contributing towards the Council’s housing land supply in a sustainable location and on previously developed land. It would also provide jobs during construction, all of which weigh in favour of the development. I attach the collective benefits, having regard that only 4 units of housing would be provided, moderate weight in favour of the scheme. However, the harm to the living conditions of future occupants, the lack of a contribution towards affordable housing and the loss of social infrastructure conflict with matters which are in general supported by the Framework and would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Thus, the proposal would not be sustainable development as defined by the Framework and this weighs heavily against the scheme.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not comply with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made otherwise. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.