Appeal 6002088

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of existing offices to 6 no. self-contained flats at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0806/25 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal is accompanied by an amended unilateral undertaking (the UU) pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The UU seeks to secure financial contributions towards [name] and Monitoring and Sustainable Alternative Natural Greenspace mitigation in relation to the Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation (SAC). As the UU is completed, I have taken it into account in my consideration of the appeal and shall return to this matter later in the decision.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to privacy, outlook and light.

The appeal site relates to [site address] ; a mid-terrace building located between [address] and [name]. The property has a four-storey extension to the rear which is partially linked to the rear elevation of the front portion of the building creating a U-shaped area which is referred to on the plans (and hereafter) as a courtyard. This courtyard area is partially painted white and enclosed at ground floor level by fencing. Adjacent to the courtyard is land that was in use for vehicle parking at the time of my site visit, and a two-storey rear outrigger on the adjacent building, which is in relatively close proximity.

The appeal scheme proposes the conversion of the building to six flats along with external alterations. The Council contends that there would be inadequate levels of outlook and privacy for the occupiers of the proposed flats due to the relationship between windows around the courtyard.

The courtyard is relatively small and the relationships between the windows within it are close. However, as the floor levels differ between the front and rear portions of the building, the windows within the courtyard are off set in the vertical plane. The windows in the south-west facing courtyard elevation are proposed to be altered to juliette balconies at first, second and third floor. However, save for the window serving Apartment 6’s penthouse bedroom which has no directly opposing windows at this level, the windows in the north-eastern courtyard elevation are proposed to be obscurely glazed and fixed shut. This would prevent any direct overlooking and could be secured by a condition. Given the differences between the floor levels and subject to an appropriate level of obscure glazing being used, I am satisfied that there would not be a harmful perception of overlooking into the juliette balcony openings either. Privacy levels for future occupiers would therefore be acceptable.

Outlook would be restricted from the windows either side of the courtyard due to the close interrelationship between built form and glazing requirements discussed above. However, all of the apartments would have windows within the opposing aspect to the bedrooms and the windows within the courtyard would not serve primary living spaces. Therefore, in this particular case, future occupiers would be afforded with sufficient outlook throughout the apartments which would not amount to oppressive living environments.

Due to the configuration of the appeal building and the proximity and height of neighbouring built form, the courtyard has a relatively enclosed appearance. The Council therefore contends that there would be inadequate natural light to apartments 1, 3, 4 and 5. The bedroom windows of these apartments would face into the courtyard, which is proposed to be painted with white paint to increase light reflection.

The Internal Daylight and Sunlight Assessment1 (IDSA) concludes that the British Standards2 (BS) [name] would be met for all habitable rooms, satisfying the daylight requirements set out in BRE Guide3. The Interior Sunlight results also demonstrate that all main living rooms would receive greater than 1.5 hours of sunlight on 21st March, which indicates that the apartments would appear reasonably sunlit in accordance with the [name]. While an overall judgement in relation to living conditions must be made having regard to standard of accommodation proposed and local and national policies, the [name] and BS provide useful tests which indicate when a space may not feel well lit.

In this case, the Council’s concerns surround the bedrooms, and I note that [name] results have not been provided for each bedroom. However, the results of the IDSA confirm that all bedrooms would meet the [name] for bedrooms. This means that these rooms would receive adequate natural light, commensurate with the type of room, in accordance with the aforementioned guide and standards. The Council has not provided any substantive justification as to why these standards should be departed from in this instance. Given the layout of the apartments, future occupiers would not be reliant on their bedrooms for their primary 1 [name] & Building Services, dated 12th November 2024 2 [name] 17037:2018+A1:2021 3 Building Research Establishment Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – a guide to good practice (2022) living space and the IDSA confirms that the apartments would be provided with appropriate levels of sunlight overall. On this basis, I am therefore satisfied that future occupiers would be afforded with adequate levels of daylight and sunlight across the apartments such that their living conditions, on the whole, would not be unduly compromised.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to privacy, outlook and light. This accords with Policies LP26 and LP29 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (the RLP) and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) which together and amongst other things, promote high quality design and amenity standards.

The appeal site is located within the Wanstead Village Conservation Area (CA). Accordingly, I am mindful of my statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA comprises the heart of the early settlement of Wanstead, which contains several attractive and historic buildings and areas of green space. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA derives from the quality of the buildings within it, their relationship with each other and surrounding green spaces. The appeal site forms part of an attractive terraced row along the [address] that encloses one of these areas of green space and thus makes a positive contribution to its significance.

The Council has not detailed any specific concerns in relation to the effect of the development on the significance of the CA. Given the physical alterations proposed are relatively discrete and located to the rear of the building, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion.

The site is located within the zone of influence (ZoI) of the Epping Forest SAC, which is a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitat Regulations). The qualifying features of the SAC are its value in respect of beech trees, wet and dry heaths and population of stag beetle. The site’s conservation objectives are to achieve the favourable conservation status of these qualifying features by maintaining and restoring the extent, distribution, structure and function of the qualifying habitats and the population and distribution of the qualifying species.

The principal pathways of impact on the European Site from developments relate to recreational pressure from visitors and atmospheric pollution from increased vehicles near the SAC. The proposal would result in one new dwelling and given the susceptibility and vulnerability of the qualifying features of the European Site to such uses, particularly when considered in combination with other local development, the proposal would have a likely significant effect on this Site due to increased disturbance through recreational activity and atmospheric pollution. I must therefore undertake an Appropriate Assessment in accordance with my duty under the Habitats Regulations and consider whether measures could be put in place to avoid or mitigate these impacts.

The Council is party to the Epping Forest SAC Strategic Access Management and [name] (SAMM) Partnership Agreement (2024) which sets out a strategic approach to mitigation by several Councils across the wider area. The Council has also adopted a Natural Greenspace Improvement Strategy (2024) to provide Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) in the borough. A tariff system has been adopted which enables developers to mitigate the impact of their development by making a pro rata contribution related to the size of their proposal. This is an adopted approach to mitigation which has been endorsed by Natural England.

The appeal is accompanied by a unilateral undertaking (the UU) pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which secures a financial contribution towards the SAMM and SANG along with a monitoring fee in accordance with the tariff. As the contribution is intended for the purpose of mitigating the harm to the European Site that I have identified and has been specifically calculated in accordance with the Council’s adopted strategies with this intent, the contribution is necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. This therefore accords with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

As the competent authority, I am satisfied that a financial contribution which aligns with the Council’s adopted strategy that has been endorsed by Natural England, would secure and ensure the delivery of mitigation sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the proposed development and thereby relieve pressure on the European Site. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site. It follows that the proposal would comply with the Habitats Regulations and Policy LP39 of the RLP which states that no development which would adversely affect the integrity of the SAC will be permitted except for reasons of overriding public interest, and only where adequate compensatory measures are provided.

The Council has suggested several conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the Framework and PPG. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions in the interests of precision and enforceability.

In addition to the standard three-year time limit condition for implementation, a condition that defines the approved plans is imposed in the interests of certainty. A condition is also imposed requiring details of the cycle parking area to be submitted in the interest of promoting sustainable travel. I have not imposed the suggested condition requiring the submission of precise material details/samples as no extensions are proposed as part of this appeal, other materials details are included on the proposed plans, and the Council has not demonstrated why this condition would otherwise be necessary to make the development acceptable.

Conditions are also imposed requiring the windows on the rear elevation of the main building to have restricted openings and be obscurely glazed and to require the courtyard walls to be painted and maintained as brilliant white in accordance with the annotations on the plans, to preserve the living conditions of future occupiers for the reasons set out above. Conditions relating to boiler emission levels and compliance with optional water consumption targets have also been imposed to ensure compliance with the RLP and minimise the impact of the development on local air quality.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme accords with the development. Accordingly, 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 drawing nos 12/24 04, 12/24 05, 12/24 06, 12/24 08, 12/24 09, 12/24 10, 12/24 11, Site Plan 1:500 and Location Plan 1:1250.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, secure cycle storage facilities shall be provided in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The secure cycle storage facilities shall be made available for use by occupiers of the proposed development and retained thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the basement Store window, ground floor Shop window, first floor kitchen/diner and bathroom windows serving Apartment 2 and second floor kitchen and bathroom windows serving Apartment 6 (as labelled on drawing nos 12/24 04, 12/24 05 and 12/24 06) on the north-eastern courtyard facing elevation have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the windows are installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all external wall surfaces within the courtyard area are finished with 3 no. coats of [name] in [name] or equivalent as agreed with the local planning authority, in accordance with the annotations shown on drawing nos 12/24 04, 12/24 05 and 12/24 06. The painted external wall surfaces shall be maintained and retained as such thereafter.

All non-Combined Heat and Power gas fired boilers installed in this development must achieve dry NOx emission levels no greater than 40 mg/kWh.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Building Regulations optional requirement of a water consumption rate of no more than 110 litres per person per day has been complied with. ** END OF SCHEDULE **