Appeal 6002794

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outlook and space standards; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site is comprised of land and buildings to the rear of [site address] (No 28), a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and includes two-storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings of a relatively consistent typology. Dwellings on [address] have a largely linear form with regular spacing, modest frontages mostly given over to parking, and generous rear gardens.

The proposal is a large detached two-storey dwelling to the rear of the plot, with vehicular access to the highway running adjacent to the flank wall of the existing dwelling. [name] appreciate a crown roof is proposed in order to address the overall height and massing issues, the predominant roof form in the immediate locality is hipped or occasional gabled. In this respect the proposal would not reflect the prevailing character of existing dwellings in the area. The proposal would result in No 28 having a significantly higher footprint to plot ratio than the surrounding dwellings and the resultant garden spaces would be substantially smaller than those of neighbouring properties.

Although the appeal site is largely screened from public viewpoints, thereby limiting its impact on the street scene, this does not negate the harm arising from the development. When experienced from nearby private land and views through the space between buildings from the public realm, the proposal would appear out of keeping with its surroundings. It would introduce a solitary form of backland development behind the dwellings on this part of [address], where no comparable pattern exists. As a result, the scheme would fail to integrate with the established layout or the prevailing character of development in the locality.

Within the confines of the plot, the scale and massing of the proposed building would give rise to an unduly dominant form of development. Its siting, height, and overall bulk would lead to a cramped appearance that sits uncomfortably within the context of neighbouring properties. Furthermore, its close relationship with the rear gardens of dwellings on [address] and [address] would accentuate its incongruous nature. Taken together, these factors would result in an intrusive and unsympathetic addition that does not respect the existing pattern of built form.

Therefore, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies 7, 10, and 26 of the LP, 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.

Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) requires a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area (GIA) for each new dwelling. The section plans indicate that the floor-to-ceiling levels is 2.4m to both floors and therefore on evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the proposal meets the requirement of this policy.

The main habitable room within the proposal is positioned on the ground floor at the rear of the building. Although natural light would be introduced through eight rooflights, the absence of any rear-facing windows would significantly restrict the quality of outlook. The only external views are provided by patio doors in the side elevation, which would face directly toward the shared boundary with No. [address] (No 26). Given the close proximity of the boundary treatment, future occupiers would experience an extremely limited and poor‐quality outlook from their principal living space, resulting in unsatisfactory living conditions.

Therefore, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of future occupiers. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 7 of the LP which in part, seek to ensure that suitable living conditions are provided as part of new developments and that proposals are well designed.

The proposal would replace a single storey outbuilding with a two-storey dwelling. While the proposal would be set-back from the joint boundary with No 26, due to the overall bulk and height, the dwelling would appear as a significant and conspicuous structure in views from the rear garden of this neighbouring property. Therefore, the proposal would be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 26 when using their garden.

During my site visit I observed a number of trees in the rear gardens of properties on [address]. Whilst these trees afford some natural screening and provide a pleasant mutual outlook, as they are not in the ownership of the appellant their retention is beyond their control. However, the first floor windows on the side and rear elevations facing properties on [address] and [address] would be obscure glazed, limiting the opportunity for overlooking these neighbouring properties.

There would also be a degree of visibility toward the proposal from the rear windows and garden areas of existing dwellings set behind the rear elevation of the proposal on [address] and [address]. That said, given the distances from these dwellings, the privacy and outlook of these neighbours would be maintained to an acceptable level.

However, due to the siting of the proposed dwelling, the first floor windows to the front elevation would offer views toward the rear garden areas of the donor property, No [site address] , and Nos 29 to [address], whilst the first floor windows on the side elevation would face the rear garden area of the adjoining neighbour at No 26. Whilst some views would be oblique, the proximity between the proposal and these neighbouring gardens would create an impression of these spaces being closely overlooked, causing harm to the privacy of these neighbours while using their garden.

Consequently, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy 7 of the LP. This policy seeks, amongst other things, to protect the amenity and living conditions of occupiers of surrounding property.

My attention has been drawn to development at [address] and [address] in Romford and [address], Rainham. I have not been provided with any detailed information relating to the [address] development.

[address] development involved the erection of a bungalow set away from plot boundaries. As such, would not be directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me.

[address] development also involved the erection of a bungalow which the Inspector determined would read as part of the existing cul-de-sac. The appellant acknowledges that these cases are not “totally comparable” to the present proposal; accordingly, I have again given very little weight to this decision.

The Council did not raise any concerns with the proposal in terms of its effect on access to daylight and sunlight for new or existing residents. Moreover, the provision of adequate outdoor space to the existing and proposed properties was found acceptable. However, these are neutral matters that neither weigh for nor against the appeal scheme.

The proposed development would be contrary to policies that seek to protect the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the neighbouring and future residential occupiers. The harm and policy conflict would be such that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. This is a matter to which I attach substantial weight.

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

As a result, paragraph 11d ii and footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (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 new residential accommodation that would assist in meeting need in the area, provide support for local facilities, and lead to the creation of jobs during the construction phase. Moreover, the proposed dwelling would be within an accessible location close to transport links and the Framework indicates that windfall sites should be supported.

However, the Framework supports the provision of well-designed development that provides a high level of amenity for existing and future users and, while it supports an efficient use of land, this is not at the expense of good design. In this instance, the harm that I have found in this regard 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 is dismissed.