Appeal 6002367

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: - a) The character and appearance of the site and the street scene; b) The living conditions of future occupiers of the development; c) The living conditions of existing neighbour occupiers at No.[address]; and d) Ecology.

The shape of the site is irregular and differs from the more conventional pattern of development within the area. The relationship of the existing bungalow at this site is unconventional compared to that of the linear two-storey development that surrounds the site.

Unlike that of other development in the area, including the existing bungalow at the site, the proposed dwellings would be sited forward within the site and close to the public footpath. House [address] to the side boundary of the site. This would create a development of constrained appearance within the site. This would be apparent within the street scene particularly given the two storey nature of the proposal and its forward siting. A development of such cramped appearance would be visually harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and would not visually assimilate successfully with the existing development within the area despite the design reflecting that of other two-storey semi-detached properties within the area.

I acknowledge that the existing bungalow is sited close to the side boundaries of the site. However, the existing development is set further back within the site and, being single storey, has a lesser visual impact than that of a two-storey development.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the street scene. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (the Local Plan) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to be of high quality design and to contribute to the creation of successful places in Havering.

The rear outdoor space associated with house 4a would be particularly cramped given its limited size and awkward shape. Future occupiers should reasonably expect to be able to sit outside during clement weather, dry washing and erect sheds or outbuildings to provide storage. This space would not provide a practical outdoor living to facilitate these. I acknowledge there is a second area of outdoor space to the side of house 4a. However, that area is an even smaller outdoor area and is also of an awkward shape. As such, it would not serve any practical purpose for future occupiers.

Further to the above, the future occupiers should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. The bi-folding doors that would serve the kitchen would be in close proximity to the site boundary. The boundary wall would be extremely dominant in the outlook from the rear habitable living space within the property. The visually overbearing impact of the wall in such close proximity to house 4a would diminish the enjoyment of the residential living environment for the future occupiers of this dwelling.

Taken together, these matters would be harmful to the enjoyment the future occupiers should reasonably expect to enjoy and would not achieve an acceptable standard of living accommodation. The harm arising is not overcome or justified by the proposed development meeting other standards set out within the London Plan minimum Gross Internal Area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers of the development. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan, Policy 7 of the Local Plan and the provisions of the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to ensure a high standard of amenity and quality of life for existing and future occupiers and to ensure that this is not adversely impacted.

The occupiers of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. There would be limited separation between the proposed dwellings and the rear garden of No.[address]. The proposal would represent a large development, and the dwellings would be clearly visible in close proximity in the outlook from the garden of No.91. The proposed dwellings would appear dominant and visually intrusive in outlook and would create a sense of being enclosed by built form. Consequently, the proposal would detract from the enjoyment these existing occupiers would have of their outdoor living space. Although the proposal may be considered acceptable in regard of other planning considerations, such as overlooking, privacy and daylight, this does not overcome my above concerns or justify the proposed development.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the existing neighbouring occupiers at No.[address]. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies 7 and 10 of the Local Plan and the provisions of the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to ensure a high standard of amenity and quality of life for existing and future occupiers and to ensure that this is not adversely impacted.

The Council’s Ecology Adviser has identified that bats could be potentially roosting in the existing dwelling. If bats are present in the bungalow they could be disturbed, injured or killed in the demolition. Therefore, the Council has indicated that a preliminary roost assessment is required.

Policy 30 of the Local Plan requires developers to demonstrate that the impact of a proposal on protected species has been fully assessed when development has the potential to impact on such species. Unless it is demonstrated that adequate mitigation or composition can be put in place, Policy 30 indicates that planning permission should be refused.

It is suggested that this matter could be dealt with by way of a suitably worded planning condition. However, there is insufficient information before me to indicate that any potential harm to protected species could be satisfactorily obviated by the imposition of such a condition. Therefore, I cannot be certain that harm to bats would or could be obviated. As such, it would not be appropriate to rely on a planning condition as the protection afforded to bats would not be guaranteed.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development could have a harmful effect upon ecology, notably bats, and given the importance placed upon such matters a precautionary approach should be taken. The proposal, without information relating to the relevant ecology would conflict with Policies 10 and 30 of the Local Plan and Policy G7 of the London Plan and the provisions of the Framework that require developers to demonstrate that the impact of a proposal on protected species has been fully assessed when development has the potential to impact on such species.

Further to the above, there is discrepancy between parties as to whether or not the proposal would be exempt from [name] requirements. However, as I am dismissing this appeal for other reasons it has not been necessary for me to explore this matter further.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites. Whilst housing delivery appears to be moving in a positive direction the local planning authority acknowledges that there is currently uncertainty with regard to housing supply and, as such, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged.

The proposal would boost the supply of housing within the Borough and could provide well-constructed family homes in a sustainable location. Family occupation would contribute to the social and community fabric of the area. The development would optimise an existing brownfield site. The proposal could provide for adequate on-site parking, refuse provision and access for emergency services. Energy efficiency measures could be incorporated within the construction. The proposal would not result in the loss of protected trees. These would bring about economic, social and environmental benefits as part of the proposed development.

The adverse impacts of the proposed development as a result of the harm to the character and appearance of the area, harm to existing and future occupiers living conditions and potential harm to protected species attracts substantial weight. Even if the housing shortfall is substantial the adverse impact of the proposed development attracts substantial weight and therefore significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework when taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Some concern is expressed to the local planning authority’s handling of the planning application, specifically with regard to the lack of an officer site visit taking place and the absence of dialogue, along with the case officer taking leave at a critical time during the consideration of the planning application. However, these are not matters that are primarily before me in respect of this appeal, but are issues for the local planning authority in the first instance. In any event, these concerns would not lead me to alter my findings above.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.