Appeal 6002795

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the; • character and appearance of the area; and, • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to outlook, privacy, noise and disturbance.

The appeal site, [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ) is a detached bungalow nestled between two existing bungalows of differing proportions. The immediate area is characterised by residential dwellings, most of which front onto [site address] , but there is an element of tandem and backland development present, both to the north and south of No [site address] , at land to the rear of Nos 15-19, 77, 111, 121, 163 and 179 [site address] . Dwellings on [site address] have varying front building lines and are set back from the highway with modest frontages mostly given over to parking, and generous rear gardens.

The proposed development would involve the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a two-storey four bedroom dwelling (Plot 1), with a terrace of four two-storey, three bedroom dwellings (Plots 2 to 5) within the existing rear garden and the creation of a shared driveway along the side boundary of the appeal site. This would lead to parking for Plots 2 to 5, whilst parking for Plot 1 would be provided to the front of the site.

The Council’s decision notice focuses on the proposed terrace of dwellings to the rear of the site, and the [name] (ODR) explains that the Council does not raise any objections, in principle, to the replacement of the existing bungalow to the front.

The access driveway would be approximately 4.5 metres wide, creating clear views into the rear of the site. [name] 1 would provide some screening of Plots 2 to 5, thereby reducing its direct visibility within the street scene, the terrace would be visible above the roofline of the frontage bungalows from public vantage points, resulting in a visual clutter in the street scene. As such, it would present as an incongruous terrace of dwellings at odds with the established character of its immediate surroundings.

The plans indicate that the terrace would extend across much of the width of the appeal site. Although terraces form part of the character of the road, the proposed two storey terrace would introduce built form of a scale, bulk and mass that would, in the context of a spacious rear garden, set next to similar rear gardens, be out of keeping with the immediate area. In this regard, the proposal’s siting and scale would mean that it would appear cramped, especially when the parking spaces, turning area and the access are factored in. Therefore, despite the development’s efficient use of a site in the urban area, the proposal would not maintain local distinctiveness, identity and character of the area.

In order to accommodate an appropriate level of onsite parking with adequate turning provision, a significant section of the site would be hard surfaced. Whilst the appellant acknowledges the limited feasibility for soft landscaping on the proposal land, the extensive hard surfaced area would be markedly at odds with surrounding private garden spaces, modest frontages, and softer landscaping which serve existing dwellings in the immediate area.

Therefore, I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies 7, 10, and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (LP), which amongst other things, seek to ensure that development maintains a strong sense of place and respects the distinctive qualities, identity and character of the area.

The appeal site is positioned between 39 and 43 [site address] (Nos 39 and 43), both of which are bungalows. The proposal would introduce a substantial two‐storey structure directly into their rear outlook, of a height, scale, and massing which would dominate the outlook from rear windows and private garden spaces of these neighbouring properties. Its proximity and overbearing relationship with the rear gardens of Nos 39 and 43 [site address] would further accentuate its prominent and unacceptable presence.

The appellant outlines that the distance from the front of Plots 2 to 5 to the rear boundary of the garden of Plot 1 is approximately 18.8m. Notwithstanding this, the first floor windows to the front elevation of Plots 2 to 5 and the first floor rear windows of the Plot 1 would overlook the private rear garden areas of Nos 39 and

As such, the proposal would result in significant harm to the occupiers of Nos 39 and 43 through overlooking and a resulting loss of privacy.

The proposal would accommodate parking for up to ten vehicles, eight forward of the terrace and two forward of the proposed detached dwelling. The Transport Statement (TS) submitted with the appeal suggests the proposal would generate an approximate 45 trips a day. Whilst this level of activity is stated to have a negligible impact on the road network, I have little evidence before me to reach a conclusion on the effects of the general activities associated with entering and egressing the site, on the existing neighbouring occupier’s peaceful enjoyment of their adjoining residential garden areas.

On the second main issue, I conclude that the proposed development is contrary to Policy 7 of the LP, which amongst other things, seeks to protect the amenity and living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding property.

The officer’s report raises concerns in respect of pedestrian safety using the access to the site; however, I note that the Highway Authority raised no objection in this regard. As the statutory consultee with responsibility for highway matters, the absence of an objection indicates that, on balance, the Authority is satisfied that the access arrangements would not result in an unacceptable impact on pedestrian safety, having regard to the relevant standards and observed

[name] have had regard to the appeal decisions referred to by the appellant, the weight to be attached to any benefit or harm deriving from a proposal is a matter of planning judgement based on the specific details and circumstances of each case. Therefore, I have considered the appeal scheme on its own merits with regard to the evidence presented.

The appellant outlines that the Council can demonstrate 3.4 years supply of deliverable housing sites, well below Government expectations. The Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

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 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.

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 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.