Appeal 6001622

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 effect of the proposed development on a) the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 52 and [address] (Nos. 52 and 52a) with specific regard to outlook; b) the character and appearance of the area; and c) whether it would provide adequate biodiversity net gain.

The proposed outbuilding would be positioned directly along the shared boundary with the sub divided rear gardens of Nos. 52 and 52a. The immediate neighbouring garden is particularly narrow, and in this context the height and length of the proposed outbuilding would appear markedly dominant. Its continuous and largely featureless brick elevation would create an extended and unrelieved built form along the boundary. This would introduce a substantial and visually intrusive presence, resulting in an overbearing and oppressive sense of enclosure for those occupiers using the garden.

The appeal proposals would therefore conflict with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (2021) (LP). As well as guidance contained in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011), which seek to ensure that development creates places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and does not adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

The appeal property operates as a guest house, having been formed from the conversion of two former residential dwellings into a single two-storey unit. It is located within a predominantly residential area characterised by dwellings with mostly generous and open rear gardens. These plots typically contain small, unobtrusive domestic structures, which reinforces a coherent pattern of spacious, uncluttered rear environments. A substantial outbuilding, spanning the full width of the plot, is positioned at the rear of the garden occupying a visually prominent position within the garden.

The proposed outbuilding, due to its height, depth, and extensive length along the side boundary, would introduce further large and visually dominant built form into the rear garden. In combination with the existing structure, the proposal would result in an intensification of development across the plot. This cumulative massing would unacceptably erode the openness that characterises rear gardens in the locality. As such, the outbuilding would appear as an incongruous feature that fails to respect the established pattern of development and would undermine the spacious garden setting that contributes positively to the area's character.

While views of the outbuilding from public vantage points would be limited, it would nonetheless be readily perceived from the rear of a number of neighbouring properties. In these private views, the combined presence of two substantial outbuildings would disrupt the consistent pattern of low‐level, lightweight garden structures typical of the surrounding area.

Consequently, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would thus conflict with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the LP. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that new development respects local building forms and patterns of development and respects the visual integrity and established scale, massing and rhythm of buildings in the surrounding physical context.

I note that the appellant indicated in their planning application form that the pre-development biodiversity value was calculated as ‘0’. However, the baseline within the submitted [name] was incomplete, with no habitats inputted. Therefore, the minimum level of information stipulated in Article 7(1A) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order was not submitted with the application.

In the absence of sufficiently detailed evidence, I am unable to determine the current biodiversity baseline of the site for the purposes of establishing a biodiversity metric. As a result, I cannot understand what level of BNG would be required, either in quantitative or qualitative terms. Furthermore, and adopting the precautionary principle, I could not reasonably recommend granting planning permission for works that may affect a site whose existing biodiversity value has not been properly assessed. This is particularly relevant here, as the Council has identified that vegetation clearance appears to have occurred after January 2020, which would require the applicant to provide additional information under BNG legislation on pre‐degradation values before a decision could be made.

Therefore, and without the necessary information, I have insufficient evidence to conclude that the appeal proposal could secure the appropriate level of BNG, whether by the condition or otherwise. In these circumstances, and given that the development is liable to provide mandatory BNG, I must conclude that the proposal would fail to fulfil its obligations under the statutory duty set out by Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Similar structures may be permitted development were the property in Use Class C3, however, the appeal site operates as a guest house and therefore falls within Use Class C1. Permitted development rights therefore do not apply. I have accordingly assessed the scheme on the basis that planning permission is required, and for the reasons identified above, the development would result in unacceptable harm, and the absence of relevant permitted development rights does not alter that conclusion.

The proposed outbuilding would provide an additional room for a disabled guest which, it is suggested, would ensure the financial viability of the business and wider area which would also deliver a benefit through additional accommodation. However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate these claims. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to whether the provision of a new disabled guest room could not be achieved through a more appropriate and sympathetic addition to the property. I therefore afford this matter limited weight.

The appellant refers to paragraph 86 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as supporting the proposal. However, paragraph 86 concerns the formulation of planning policies and is not directed at decision making for individual schemes of this nature. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would generate any wider public economic benefits. The reliance on paragraph 89 of the Framework is also misplaced. That paragraph relates specifically to supporting the rural economy, therefore, its provisions do not apply in this instance.

The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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