Appeal 6001542

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the extension to mezzanine floor and internal alterations to create a multipurpose hall, and addition of Use Class F2(b) and ancillary F1(f) use to existing F1(a) use at [site address] , Hornchurch, Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application reference P0533.25, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance; and • highway safety.

The appeal site encompasses the ground, mezzanine and lower ground floors of [site address] , with the main access from The Broadway at the front, and a private road to the rear. There are residential uses on the upper floors of the building. The site is within Elm Park District Centre, which features a diverse range of uses and a well-maintained public realm featuring wide pavements, planting and seating.

During my site visit, I observed that the extension to the mezzanine floor and internal alterations were already constructed. These changes accord with the proposed plans provided (drawing no. 19/032/003). The proposal would therefore retain the extended mezzanine and other internal alterations and allow the operation of a Use Class F2(b) use and an ancillary Use Class F1(f) use alongside the extant F1(a) use.

The additional uses would allow the operation of a community facility offering youth and adult educational classes and ancillary prayer space, which would result in an intensification of the use of the site and an increase in the total number of daily and weekly users of the site. The hours of operation of the proposal would match the opening hours of the existing Use Class F1(a) tuition centre.

While the proposal could lead to an increase in noise and disturbance, particularly for residents occupying upper floor flats on The Broadway, there is uncontested technical evidence relating to noise impacts that would arise from the operation of the proposed use that suggests that noise levels would not exceed relevant acceptable thresholds for neighbouring occupiers.

The proposal would lead to an increased amount of people congregating outside the premises when queueing to enter and when leaving, which could have noise and disturbance impacts. However, the wide pavements in the area would allow an increased number of people to congregate outside the premises without impeding other pedestrians. The noise and disturbance impacts arising from an increased number of people outside the premises would be at a level that could be reasonably expected within an Outer London District Centre. Such impacts can be addressed by mitigation measures secured through condition.

I deal with highways issues below, but with regard to noise and disturbance associated with an increase in on-street parking, I find that any adverse impacts would be limited. The accessibility of the site and the measures put in place to promote access via sustainable transport modes would reduce reliance on private vehicles and thereby limit the potential for additional on-street parking.

Even if the proposal were to lead to an increase in on-street parking in the area and therefore cause some noise and disturbance impacts, such impacts would not be an unusual occurrence in a town centre location such as this.

Objections to the application raised general concern regarding the impact of increased noise on the adjacent nursery use. While the technical noise evidence does not specifically test the noise impact of the proposal on the nursery, I am satisfied that the noise evidence relating to the impact on neighbouring residential uses is a reasonable proxy for assuming the noise impact on the nursery. As this evidence shows that noise impacts would be acceptable, I find that there would be no adverse noise impacts on the nursery as a result of the proposal. Furthermore, the nursery is located within a parade of shops in an area where some noise and disturbance impacts could reasonably be expected, and the proposal would not exceed a reasonable level of impact.

In conclusion, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance, and would therefore be in accordance with Policies 7, 13, and 16 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (adopted November 2021) (the Local Plan), Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021). It would also be consistent with paragraph 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework).

Policy 7 of the Local Plan supports developments that do not result in unacceptable levels of noise, vibration and disturbance for existing and future residents. Policy 13 of the Local Plan supports development proposals within town centres that, amongst other things, are appropriate to the scale and function of the town centre, do not harm the town centres vitality and viability, and provide active frontages at ground floor level, support street activity and generate pedestrian movement. Policy 16 of the Local Plan supports proposals for new and extended social infrastructure provided they do not adversely impact on residential character and amenity.

Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should manage noise by avoiding significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life.

Paragraph 198 of the Framework states that new development should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life.

The appeal site is accessible via a range of transport modes. It is close to Elm Park London Underground station, and several bus routes operate nearby. There are also a number of on-street car parking spaces in the immediate area and within a short walking distance. The proposal also includes 24 cycle parking spaces to facilitate access via cycle, as well as a disabled car parking space.

The site’s accessibility via sustainable modes of transport would make these attractive modes of choice for people accessing the site, compared to access via private vehicle. The appellant has prepared a travel plan statement detailing a range of measures to promote sustainable transport modes including public transport, walking and cycling. I consider that these measures, secured by condition, would be effective in promoting access via sustainable modes, thereby limiting additional trips by private vehicles and any associated adverse impacts on highway safety.

Even if the Council’s view was correct and the majority of users of the site travelled via private vehicles, the appellant’s parking stress survey shows that there is available parking in the vicinity that could accommodate additional vehicles, both paid parking and free parking.

Objections to the application raised safety concerns for users of the adjacent nursery at drop off and pick up times, as a result of the potential increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic arising from the proposal. Measures to promote sustainable transport and manage users of the appeal site would mitigate these concerns. Notwithstanding this, it would not be unusual within a town centre location to see a range of uses where busy periods overlap.

In conclusion, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety, and would therefore be in accordance with Policies 16, 23 and 24 of the Local Plan, and Policies S1 and T4 of the London Plan (2021). It would also be consistent with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework.

Policy 16 of the Local Plan supports proposals for new and extended social infrastructure provided they, amongst other things, are accessible by public transport and active travel; are located within the community that they are intended to serve and incorporate an inclusive design; and ensure highway safety, especially in regards to pedestrians and cyclists. Policy 23 of the Local Plan supports development which ensures safe and efficient use of the highway and demonstrates that adverse impacts on the transport network are avoided or, where necessary, mitigated. Policy 24 of the Local Plan concerns parking provision and design, including a requirement for disabled and cycle parking to be located close to town centres and the entrance to facilities.

Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should reflect and be integrated with current and planned transport access, capacity and connectivity, and not increase road danger. Policy S1 states that new social infrastructure facilities should be easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking and should be encouraged in high streets and town centres.

Paragraph 115 of the Framework states that specific applications for development should ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location; and safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Paragraph 116 states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.

The proposal would contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre and deliver a community facility that would address local community need. This accords with Local Plan Policies 12, 13 and 16, London Plan (2021) Policy S1 and paragraph 98 of the Framework. I ascribe these benefits moderate weight.

The Council has drawn my attention to a dismissed appeal from 2023 which concerned an application to amend a condition on a previously permitted application at the appeal site, to allow additional uses. While the 2023 appeal concerns similar issues to the current appeal, the circumstances differ. The inspector in the previous case highlighted the lack of objective evidence relating to noise and disturbance impacts, whereas the current appeal has provided evidence to identify and mitigate such impacts. The 2023 appeal therefore only has very limited weight in my determination and does not alter the conclusions I have reached on this appeal.

The Framework in paragraph 57 indicates that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The Council has suggested conditions and I have considered these in relation to the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, amending where necessary in the interests of precision, consistency and enforceability, including merging some similar conditions and removing tailpiece wording.

The standard commencement condition and the plans condition are imposed to provide certainty. I have inserted the plan drawing numbers and titles into the Council’s suggested plans condition in the interests of precision, for the avoidance of any doubt on which plans are approved.

Conditions requiring provision of the car parking space, electric vehicle charging and cycle storage are necessary to ensure compliance with development plan policy and that the proposal delivers appropriate cycle parking to assist with measures to promote sustainable transport. The Council’s suggested conditions relating to the car parking space and cycle storage included a requirement for the appellant to seek approval of details prior to the use commencing, but this is not necessary as there is sufficient detail within the plans cited in the condition to ensure that these aspects are delivered satisfactorily.

A condition to limit the proposal to specific uses within [name] F1 and F2 is necessary in order to ensure that other uses within these classes cannot operate without express permission, thereby ensuring that potential impacts associated with these other uses are avoided. I have removed the tailpiece from the Council’s suggested wording as this could potentially allow significant changes to be made to the development without proper scrutiny, and therefore it is not reasonable.

In imposing this condition, I have considered the Council’s comments regarding the proposed ancillary Use Class F1(f) prayer space, particularly whether it would remain ancillary and how this would be effectively managed and controlled. I am satisfied that the condition meets the relevant tests including enforceability, and, in conjunction with other conditions, provides assurance that the prayer space will remain ancillary.

A condition relating to a travel plan is necessary to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised.

Conditions requiring the development to be implemented in accordance with the noise impact assessment, noise management plan, impact management report and written dispersal policy, and to limit amplified music, are necessary to prevent and mitigate noise and disturbance impacts. The Council has raised concerns about the effectiveness and enforceability of several measures detailed in these documents, including that some measures will be enforced by volunteers and how proposed restrictions are compatible with prayer times at certain times of the year. However, I am satisfied that the measures are appropriate and meet the relevant tests.

I have not imposed a condition requiring submission of an updated noise management plan as adequate justification has not been provided as to why an updated document is necessary. However, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to the noise management plan submitted with the application, for the reasons noted above.

Conditions relating to maximum occupancy levels, hours of use, deliveries and waste collection are necessary to limit noise and disturbance impacts on neighbouring occupiers.

Conditions relating to hours of construction and a construction method statement are not necessary as there will be no construction work as part of the proposal, as the extension to the mezzanine and internal alterations have already been completed.

I have not imposed a condition requiring Secured by Design certification as it has not been demonstrated why this is necessary or relevant to the development being permitted.

I have found that the proposal would be in accordance with the Development Plan read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents, including any

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing no. 19/032/003 for 24 bicycles to be stored, and that space shall thereafter be kept available for the storage of bicycles.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the disabled parking space, including the provision of suitable infrastructure to allow the future installation of charging facilities for electric or [name] vehicles, has been provided in accordance with drawing no. 19/032/003. Thereafter the space shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended), the use hereby permitted shall be a tuition centre in Class F1(a) of the Order, or alternative uses falling within Class F1 (b) (c) (d), or ancillary Class F1(f) use to existing F1(a) use and Class F2(b), and shall be used for no other purpose(s) whatsoever including any other use in Classes F1 and F2 of the Order.

No amplified music or speech shall be played or reproduced in the building.

The maximum number of people accommodated within the premises hereby approved shall not exceed 45 at any one time, including staff.

The premises shall not be used for the purposes hereby permitted other than between the hours of 09:00 and 21:00 Monday to Friday, 09:00 to 17:00 on Saturdays, 10:00 and 16:00 on Sundays and not at all on bank or public holidays.

No deliveries or waste collections shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 07.00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. No deliveries or waste collections shall take place on Sundays, bank or public holidays. End of schedule