Appeal 6001388

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] (Silver Bayis Ltd) against Broxbourne Borough Council. This is the subject of a separate

The appeal is connected to another scheme on part of the same site1. I have dealt with the two proposals in separate decisions here. However, as there are related issues insofar as it pertains to vehicle parking and highway safety, there will be an element of cross referencing.

The main issues are:

the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area,

the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of existing and future occupants of the properties,

whether the proposed development would provide sufficient vehicle parking provision, and

whether there would be adequate and satisfactory provision for waste and recycling storage. 1 Inspectorate ref: 6001430

The site is set within a suburban area formed of a mix of semi-detached and terraced houses, flats and small parades of shops with flats above. Properties in the area are of a mix of vernaculars ranging from early to mid-20th century development together with modern infill sites and redevelopments. Despite the architectural differences, properties share a unifying theme of possessing a fairly consistent building line, addressing the street with front doors and gardens to the rear. The appeal site, at present, is not inconsistent with this character although it differs due to the presence of the lock up garages to the rear. Even so, this is a relatively modest and low-key structure that is not dissimilar to many detached outbuildings that exist at neighbouring properties.

Whilst the proposed development of two flats would not be substantially different in size to the existing garage block, its form and function would differ and would clearly represent a residential development in a location that would not be typical for the surrounding area. It would therefore not relate well to its surroundings and would not be in keeping with the pattern of development in the locality.

This incongruous nature is not assisted by the use of weatherboard cladding in the design. However, I do accept that this could be controlled by way of condition were permission to be granted. This however would not overcome my concerns regarding the location of the building and its relationship with the surrounding area.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with policies DSC1 and DSC2 of the Broxbourne Local Plan 2020 (BLP) insofar as it would not enhance local character and distinctiveness. Nevertheless, I do accept that the removal of the area of hardstanding and introduction of landscaping in the rear yard area would be a visual improvement. This, however, does not outweigh the harm to the character of the area identified above.

The proposed flats would be one storey and have a single aspect. They would only have outlook towards the south where the flats would have vantage solely towards the existing building at [address]. Whilst this appears to be presently unoccupied, the plans submitted with the related appeal (6001430) indicate living and dining areas to two ground floor flats in addition to an upper floor terrace facing this direction.

The introduction of the proposed flats at the rear would mean there would be substantial overlooking between the rear facing flats at [address] and from the aspect of the proposed flats. This situation is particularly pronounced for the proposed flats due to their single direction of outlook and studio arrangement offering limited to no opportunities for any privacy to living areas. This would result in inadequate levels of privacy to both sides and thus provide substandard living conditions for the occupants. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with policy EQ1 of the BLP in that it does not avoid detrimental impacts upon neighbouring or existing occupiers.

I have noted the concerns of the Council regarding the size of the flats, which are small. They are however more than the minimum floorspace size set out in the [name]. Therefore, notwithstanding the overlooking and privacy concerns that I have set out, the internal arrangement is satisfactory.

The overall site presently benefits from other planning permissions. According to the [name] this includes one attached dwelling2 and prior approval for the conversion of the existing ground floor to two flats3. It is not clear to me what the use of the upper floor of [address] is and what its parking requirements are. Nor is it clear what the existing requirement for vehicle parking is for the ground floor retail units. Moreover, the proposal would result in the loss of seven lock up-garages together with the removal of a large area of hardstanding. The use of these lock-up garages, whether for parking or otherwise, is also unclear. The situation is not assisted by the related appeal (6001430) seeking to vary the amount of parking spaces on the site.

Neither party has provided a comprehensive assessment of the existing and proposed situations taking into account current and intended uses. Indeed, this is highlighted in the 2 May 2025 consultation response from Hertfordshire County Council. Accordingly, I am not in a position to provide any fully reasoned observations on this issue.

It is however apparent that, due to the removal of the garages and hardstanding, there would be a substantial loss of parking provision and that, according to the parking survey, there is already a relatively high degree of parking stress in the area. Even though this proposal has been put forward as a car free development, this has been done without full establishment of parking provision and requirements on the site as a whole.

Accordingly, due to the loss of parking, lack of clarity on the existing and proposed uses for the site overall and parking requirements under Local Plan standards; I am unable to conclude that the proposal would not result in an increase in on-street parking demand where there is already parking stress. This could therefore also be detrimental to highway safety. The proposal thus conflicts with policy TM5 of the BLP due to this lack of information and clarity.

The waste and recycling store is shown on the plans and is located to the side of the existing building at [address]. The Council’s Waste Supplementary Planning Guidance (WSPG) sets out that bin stores should be within 30 metres of the front door of a property and no more than 25 metres from the collection point. There is no requirement in the WSPG for the storage area to be within a property’s curtilage.

The waste and recycling store proposed here is 22 metres from the furthest flat and 19 metres from the collection point. The proposed waste and recycling storage therefore complies with policy EQ1 of the BLP. 2 Council ref: 07/24/0575/F 3 Council ref: 07/24/0080/P4D

I have noted the comment of a third party relating to the presence of bats. However, I note that the Council does not appear to have requested any preliminary roost assessments and none have been provided by the appellant. Bats are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and therefore it would be a requirement to ensure that no roosts or potential roosts are disturbed during works on the site.

Neither party has provided advice on whether the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. I have therefore not gone on to undertake any form of balancing exercise under paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, detrimental to the living conditions of the occupants and neighbours within the application site. The parking implications of the proposal are indeterminate due a lack of information. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is be dismissed.