Appeal 6001775

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension, garage conversion, first floor side extension and new window where the existing garage door was, at [site address] , Havering, Romford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0770.25, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed garage conversion on the existing levels of parking stress and amount of on-street parking in the locality.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey three bedroom semi-detached dwellinghouse. The garage is attached to the host dwelling, with a block paved parking space and accessway to the frontage.

The site is situated in an area with a Transport for London (TFL), Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1b, indicating poor accessibility to public transport.

Policy 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2021(LP) requires a minimum residential parking standard for PTAL 0-1, of 1.5 off-street spaces per residential unit, where that property has 3+ bedrooms. Policy 24 goes on to state that where a development proposal would result in a net loss of car parking spaces, the applicant will be required to robustly demonstrate that there is no need for these spaces.

The narrative to Policy 24, at 10.2.1, states in part that development should aim to strike an appropriate balance between meeting the essential parking needs of the site whilst neither acting as a discouragement to using public transport nor adding to demand for on-street parking. Developments should seek to provide the minimum realistic amount of car parking for the scheme, without undue risk of overspill parking onto surrounding streets. This reasoning continues at 10.2.9 which adds that the Council will expect parking provision to be provided on site, however it is recognised that this may not always be sufficient.

During my visit, I was able to observe the space within the garage. Based on my observations, the internal dimensions of the garage are insufficient to allow its practical use for parking a vehicle. As a result, even if there were a need for an off-street parking space, it does not currently meet that need and is unlikely to do so in the future.

Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates 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.

At the time of my visit, I noted that parking in the area was restricted to permit holders only, between specified hours. However, outside of these limited times there are a number of opportunities for on-street parking, including immediately outside of the appeal site. Notwithstanding this, I observed very little on-street parking in the immediate locality of the appeal site, indicating a general ability for the road network to absorb additional on-street parking without adversely impacting highways flow, pedestrians’ safety or the amenity of surrounding occupiers.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposal would not adversely impact the existing levels of parking stress and amount of on-street parking in the locality and would therefore be acceptable. The development is therefore compliant with Policy 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2021, which, amongst other things, seeks to set appropriate residential parking standards for the area.

The Council has suggested various conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In some instances, while I have adopted the suggested conditions, I have made changes to wording to add precision and clarity as appropriate.

A condition requiring no additional windows to be formed in the flank wall of the extensions is not considered reasonable or necessary as there is no clear justification to do so.

In addition to the statutory time limit for implementation, a condition setting out the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. A condition to ensure that the flats roofs of the proposed extensions are not used as a roof terrace is considered necessary in the interests of retaining privacy for occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, including the Framework, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR

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 drawing Nos: CW-R01-PR-101 (Rev: R01), CW-R01-PR-102 (Rev: R01), CW-R01-PR-103 (Rev: R01), CW-R01-PR-104 (Rev: R01), CW- R01-PR-105 (Rev: R01).

The roof areas of the extensions hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. END OF SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS