Appeal 6002761

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are;

the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;

the effect of the proposal on living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy;

whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook; and,

the effect of the proposal on the existing levels of parking in the locality.

The appeal site is comprised of land and buildings to the rear of a disused two-storey commercial building located to the end of [site address] . The character of the immediate area is predominately a mix of two-storey semi-detached residential dwellings of a largely consistent typology and terraced two-storey residential dwellings. The properties on [site address] have a largely linear form with regular spacing, modest frontages largely given over to parking, and generous rear gardens.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) promotes the efficient use of land, particularly encouraging the delivery of new homes on small sites, brownfield land, and infill plots as a means of boosting housing supply and supporting sustainable growth.

The ‘Infill development in suburban areas’ section of the [name] (2024), states that Havering has a prevalence of low-density planned housing forms, which have an attractive suburban character, and presents potential opportunities for infill developments. This section highlights key factors for development proposals which includes the ability for the site to be a considerate neighbour and be in keeping with the existing scale and grain of the area.

The proposed backland terrace of three dwellings would sit awkwardly at ninety degrees, immediately behind Nos 40 and [site address] [site address] . The development would front an existing footpath, which links [site address] with [address], and the rear gardens of properties on [address].

Whilst not visible in the street scene, the large footprint of the proposal would take almost full advantage of the limited plot width, which would create a disproportionately sized development that would fail to respect the relationship of the existing built form in the locality. Accordingly, due to the position, scale and bulk of the proposal, it would appear incongruous and contrived in respect of its relationship with the site and surrounding buildings and proximity to the existing rear garden spaces of adjacent dwellings on this part of [site address] .

Moreover, the individual plots would have a much shorter depth, at odds with the prevailing character of plots within the immediate area. For the reasons above, the proposed development would result in a cramped plot pattern, discordant to the prevailing plot size, setting and arrangement of properties in the surrounding area.

My attention has been drawn to the backland development of a single dwelling within the rear garden of No 31 [site address] , approved in 2015. However, I find that development, along with the planning policy context at that time, and the individual circumstances, are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. I have therefore assessed the proposal on its own merits.

Therefore, I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies 7, 10, and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) (LP) and paragraph 135 of the Framework, which amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development maintains a strong sense of place and respects the distinctive qualities, identity and character of the area.

The evidence before me indicates that planning permission has been granted to convert the commercial building to the front of the appeal site at No [site address] [site address] , into two dwellings. Whilst this consent may be extant, during my site inspection I observed that no works to implement the consent were apparent. In this regard, I have not considered the effect of the scheme before me on the potential future occupiers of these dwellings.

The proposal provides dormer windows to the first-floor, front and rear elevations, for each dwelling which would provide the occupiers with views towards the rear gardens of properties on [address] and along [site address] . In regard to the effect upon the privacy of the occupiers of [address], due to the distances, and the intervening outbuildings I observed during my site inspection, any overlooking would be limited. I am therefore satisfied that the degree of overlooking would not be unacceptably harmful.

However, while some overlooking of gardens is inevitable in residential areas and already occurs to some degree, due to the limited distance to the boundary of the appeal site , the rear garden areas to Nos 38, and 36 [site address] would be readily visible from the first-floor rear dormer windows. I find that the views into these rear garden areas would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy for these residential occupiers.

Notwithstanding my findings on the impact on privacy for the occupiers of properties on [address], I conclude on the second main issue that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to the privacy of the Nos 38 and 36 [site address] . The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the LP and Paragraph 135 of the Framework which, amongst other things, these seek to ensure that the amenity and quality of life of existing residents is not adversely impacted.

Policy D6 of the London Plan requires homes to be designed to meet minimum space standards, to provide adequate sunlight and daylight, and to incorporate well-designed, private outdoor space proportionate to the size of the dwelling. Private amenity space for each dwelling should be usable and have a balance of openness and protection, appropriate to its outlook and orientation.

Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan requires new residential development to deliver high standards of design and amenity, protecting the privacy and outlook of existing occupiers whilst ensuring new homes enjoy good quality, usable private amenity space.

Paragraph 135 of the NPPF underpins these principles by requiring decision-makers to ensure that new development is visually attractive, sympathetic to local character, and provides a high standard of amenity for both existing and future users.

It is acknowledged that the proposal is dual‐aspect and meets, or indeed exceeds, the minimum internal space standards, as well as the requirements for garden areas, cycle storage, and refuse space. However, any ground‐floor views to the front would be significantly curtailed by the proposed boundary treatment, limiting outlook and reducing the perceived openness of these spaces.

Each dwelling would benefit from approximately twenty‐eight square metres of garden space, incorporating a modest rear deck and air‐source heat pumps would be positioned adjacent to the rear boundary fencing. These spaces, while offering some scope for planting and greenery, would be significantly constrained in both size and function. Each garden is compact, providing limited opportunities for seating, relaxation, or any meaningful sense of seclusion in the context of family-sized accommodation. Their shallow depth and close relationship with surrounding boundaries mean they would not achieve the privacy or openness normally expected of outdoor amenity spaces intended for everyday enjoyment. Furthermore, the combination of limited garden depth and the proposed tall, box‐like boundary enclosure would restrict views from both internal rooms and external areas, resulting in a poor outlook and creating a pronounced sense of enclosure for future occupiers.

Therefore, I conclude on the third main issue that the proposal would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future residential occupiers, with particular regard to outlook. It would be contrary to Policy 7 of the LP, Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and paragraph 135 of the Framework, which amongst other things, these seek to ensure a high standard of amenity for future occupiers.

The proposal would be car-free due to its high public transport access levels (PTAL) rating of 5 and to comply with Policy T6 of the London Plan. It is also within a controlled parking zone due to limited parking provision in the area. Although the site has good access to services, being family homes, future occupants would be likely to use a car.

A legal agreement would be the most appropriate way of ensuring that the development remains car-free and restricting future occupiers from obtaining residents parking permits is both reasonable and necessary. The appellant has outlined a willingness to enter into a [name] (UU) legal agreement that would prevent future residents from obtaining residents parking permits and thus the proposed development would not have any adverse transport impacts in this regard.

However, at present there is no such mechanism in place to prevent occupiers from obtaining a parking permit. Without this, future occupants would not be aware that they are not entitled to such permits and the proposal would lead to increased demand for on-street parking in the area, which is already under stress.

I have not been provided with a signed legal agreement. In the absence of a signed legal agreement, I cannot be certain the proposal would not exacerbate local parking stress. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies 23 and 24 of the LP, Policy T6 of the London Plan and paragraph 116 of the Framework.

The Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The most recent [name] (Dec 2024) indicates a delivery of 61% for 2023. This is well below Government expectations.

As a result, paragraph 11d 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 residential accommodation 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 significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, as well as to neighbouring and future residential occupiers. The support for the principle of development within the Framework is tempered 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 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.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.