Appeal 6001528

The appeal is dismissed.

For reasons of precision, I have taken the description of development used in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice. This refers to all aspects of the proposed development, including the front extension and additional window.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed change of use would be acceptable, with regard to its effect on the supply of family housing and its accessibility to public transport; • the effect of the proposed front extension on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to parking provision.

Policy SP3 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2020- 2037 (BDLP) sets out that the Council will seek to ensure that development does not limit the supply of self-contained housing, particularly family housing. Under the BDLP, family housing is defined as a dwelling that by virtue of its size, layout and design is suitable for a family with children to live in and generally has two or more bedrooms. The appeal property benefits from four bedrooms and a spacious garden. I consider that it would meet the definition of family housing under the BDLP.

Policy DMH 5 of the BDLP outlines the criterion which applications for House in [name] (HMOs) must satisfy. [name] requires them to meet an identified need.

I recognise the need to provide a range of housing types and tenures, and the role HMOs play in providing affordable accommodation which may be attractive to single adults and healthcare workers, amongst other people. The appellant also contends that they have had issues renting out the property as a single dwelling. However, a general level of demand, or lack of, is not the same as demonstrating an identified need as required by Policy DMH 5. There is also no substantive evidence before me to confirm that the appellant has been unable to rent out the property as a single dwelling. I am therefore not satisfied it has been demonstrated that the scheme would meet an identified need. Additionally, if the appeal were to be allowed, there would be no guarantee that the dwelling would continue to contribute to the supply of family housing.

The approach in the BDLP is supported by evidence in the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment. This document demonstrates a low number of family homes in the Borough, yet a high demand for such properties. It also demonstrates that most developments coming forward are for smaller dwellings.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the development would not meet an identified need and would result in a reduction, albeit modest, to the supply of family dwellings, for which there is a need.

[name] of Policy DMH 5 requires HMOs to be located in an area of high transport accessibility. The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 3, indicating moderate access to public transport. However, the site is within walking distance to [name] and two bus stops which are served by various routes. Additionally, the site is proximate to a school, hospital and various other services. Therefore, whilst there would be some policy conflict, I am satisfied that this would not result in material harm and, notwithstanding the sites PTAL rating, it is in a relatively accessible location.

To conclude on the main issue, whilst the scheme would be located in an area accessible to public transport, it would not meet an identified need and would result in a reduction to the supply of family dwellings, for which there is a need. As a whole, it would therefore be contrary to Policies SP3 and DMH 5 of the BDLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development meets an identified need does not limit the supply of family housing.

I do not find any conflict with Policy SP8 and DMT 1 of the BDLP and Policy T4 of the London Plan (LP). These policies relate to sustainable transport and the transport impacts of development. I do not find Policy DMD 1 of the BDLP, which relates to high quality design, or Policy D14 of the LP, which relates to noise, to be relevant to this main issue.

The proposed front extension would project outwards from the front elevation, sitting broadly in line with the existing bay window. It would sit underneath the existing canopy, ensuring subordinance and integration into the main property. The bay window would remain clearly visible and continue to read as an original architectural element of the property. The window form would relate to the existing fenestration, and matching white upvc and brick would be used to match existing materials. Additionally, porches and front extensions, of varying sizes and styles, are common within the area. The scheme would therefore be in keeping with the host property and surrounding development.

Overall, for the reasons set out, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be in accordance with Policies SP2, DMD 1 and DMD 5 of the BDLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that complements the character of the area.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to the proposal being contrary to Policy D4 of the LP. This policy concerns the use of tools for design analysis, design review processes and maintaining design quality through to completion, which I do not find to be relevant to the determination of this appeal.

I have not been directed to any specific parking standards for HMOs. Policy T6.1 of the LP requires up to one space per dwelling for a dwelling with 3+ beds in such a location. The LP outlines how these standards should not be exceeded.

It is suggested that the driveway could accommodate more than one parking space. However, based on the evidence before me, and given the layout of the driveway, access and the positioning of the dropped kerb, only one space would be independently accessible. The other two spaces would require cars to be moved in order for them to be accessible, which would be problematic given the HMO use, as adults would be living independently from one another. Therefore, based on this, the scheme would provide one independently accessible parking space, in line with LP requirements.

There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the scheme would generate an additional parking demand of 5 cars. Given the scheme would ensure parking provision in line with policy requirements, a parking stress survey would not be necessary.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me, the scheme would provide appropriate parking provision. I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the proposal would result in overspill parking onto the highway and therefore be harmful to highway safety. The scheme is in accordance with [name] 1 and DMT 2 of the BDLP and Policy T1, T6 and T6.1 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that developments provide appropriate levels of car parking.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, my findings are unaltered on account of this because my focus in considering this appeal is the merits of the Council’s decision.

The site may not be at risk of flooding. The scheme would not harm neighbouring amenity or the character and appearance of the area. These are however neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of, nor against the appeal.

The scheme may incorporate electrical vehicle charging points. It may also ensure wheelchair access, however there are limited details regarding this before me. It may make efficient use of the existing dwelling, providing accommodation in a reasonably accessible location. However, it would also result in the loss of a family dwelling, for which there is a need. In any case, these considerations would not outweigh the harm identified.

The proposal would be in a located in an area accessible to public transport. It would also provide an appropriate level of off-street car parking, in line with policy requirements, and would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, it would not meet an identified need and would result in a reduction to the supply of family dwellings, for which there is a need.

In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.