Appeal 6002222

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:

the character and appearance of the area, and;

the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site is located to the rear of Nos 52, 54 and [address]. The proposal would involve the removal of a detached garage fronting [address], currently enclosed by a close boarded fence and gates.

The appeal site is located within a well‐established suburban residential context, characterised predominantly by a cohesive pattern of two‐storey semi‐detached and terraced dwellings of a consistent urban grain. Frontages are generally modest and largely occupied by off‐street vehicular parking, with generous private garden space to the rear.

Due to the extent of the rear gardens on [address], the properties on [address] are set well back from the junction with [address], giving the immediate area a spacious and open ambiance. Whilst the appellant draws parallels between the appeal site and the plot sizes of Nos 52, 54 and [address], these properties have resulted from subdivision of an originally larger corner plot, and are demonstrably smaller than the prevailing deep plots of surrounding properties on [address] and [address]. Casting the net wider, individual plot sizes remain significantly larger.

The proposed dwellinghouse would sit prominently within this open space, forward of the established building-line, and at an angle that would be out of context with the prevailing character of properties in the street scene. As such, it would form an isolated and uncharacteristic development that would significantly harm the open setting of the area.

I recognise the appellant has sought to replicate a number of prevailing architectural features, including the first floor oriel window, double height gable and hipped roof. However, a two-storey detached dwelling in this location would result in a cramped development at odds with the consistent rhythm of semi-detached dwellings. The attendant residential paraphernalia would add visual clutter to the street scene and be incongruous to the existing character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been drawn to other proposals for development, Council decision notices and appeal decisions, in the locality. However, there are a number of key differences in terms of both the development proposals, and the setting for these. For example, [address] was a change of use proposal with differing main issues. [address] case was balanced on the limited harm to the character and appearance of the area, Totham was an outline application in a countryside setting, and [address] was a single storey edge-of-town proposal. The individual circumstances of these proposals, including differing planning policy contexts, are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. As such, these developments do not alter my findings on the appeal scheme, which I have assessed on its own merits.

It is acknowledged that the proposal meets or indeed exceeds the minimum internal and external space standards, highways and cycle provision requirements. The appellant also outlines the support for housing within strategic policies of the London Plan (2021). Whilst the proposal would use urban land and provide a much needed home, the small site, form and layout would be at odds with the prevailing character of the area.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) (LP) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure proposals reinforce the local street scene, respond to distinctive local building forms and patterns of development, and respect the established scale, massing, and rhythm of buildings and frontages.

The proposal would sit immediately adjacent to No 54 and No 54A and, whilst not directly adjacent to No 52, there would be a material change to the outlook from this property, set against the current context. The proposed two-storey building, being approximately twelve metres from the rear elevation of the nearest existing dwellings would significantly and unacceptably increase the sense of visual confinement and enclosure when viewed from these neighbouring properties.

Moreover, the proposal would result in a length of approximately ten metres of flank wall, sitting close to the shared boundary of the properties, and in this regard the proposal would have a markedly oppressive effect on the outlook from No 54 and No 54A. The flank wall would dominate the immediate field of view, adding to the strong sense of enclosure that would be visually overbearing.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal by reason of its height, depth and proximity to the site boundary would introduce an overbearing development which would create an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook to No 54 and No [address], contrary to Policy 7 of the LP, which, amongst other things, requires development to protect the amenity of existing neighbouring occupiers.

The Council has acknowledged the ecological information provided by the appellant and considers the matter could now be conditioned were the appeal to be allowed. On the evidence before me I have no reason to conclude otherwise. As such this is a neutral matter weighing neither for nor against appeal in the

The Council has confirmed that it is able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 3.4 years. This is well below Government expectations. As a result, paragraph 11(d)(ii) and footnote 8 of the Framework require that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of a new accommodation in an accessible location that would assist in meeting need in the area, provide support for local facilities, and the creation of jobs during the construction phase.

However, for the reasons given above and from the information before me, I have concluded that there would be material harm arising to the character and appearance of the area, and to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The support for the principle of housing development within the Framework is balanced by the importance it places on the provision of well-designed development that provides a high level of amenity for existing and future users. In this instance, the harm in these respects would be both significant and enduring. When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

I conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.