Appeal 6002943

The appeal is dismissed.

Additional drawings have been submitted with the appeal, showing an alternative internal layout of the ground and first floors to address the Council’s concerns regarding the stacking arrangement. In deciding whether to accept these drawings, I have had regard to the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England (2026), which states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that what is considered at appeal should be essentially the same proposal that was before the Council and interested parties at the application stage. In this instance, the drawings provide supplementary information relevant to the main issues rather than constituting a design evolution, and they do not materially alter the scheme. The Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment. I am therefore satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by their acceptance, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

During my site visit, I noted that works have commenced in relation to the proposed conversion and the annex. Nevertheless, these works do not appear to fully correspond with the submitted plans. For clarity, my assessment is based on the plans before me, rather than what has been constructed to date. Any works carried out not in accordance with those plans would be a matter between the Council and the appellant.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to the provision of internal space and outdoor amenity space, noise and disturbance, outlook, and privacy.

The appeal relates to a semi-detached property on a predominantly residential street. The proposal comprises the creation of 3 new flats, with one unit on each of the ground, first and loft floors, facilitated through extensions, fenestration alterations and internal works.

Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) requires a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75% of all self-contained dwellings’ gross internal floor areas (GIA) to ensure adequate daylight penetration, ventilation and cooling, and sense of space. Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (the LP) requires compliance with The London Plan requirement for floor-to-ceiling heights.

The appellant contends that the correct ceiling height across the proposed development would be at least 2.5m, rather than the 2.4m stated in the application. However, despite markings indicating ceiling heights noted during my site visit, no plans or sectional drawings have been submitted to indicate the proposed ceiling heights. This is particularly important in relation to the loft-level flat, where a significant proportion of its floor area, including the main living space, would be located beneath the front roof slope. [name] am unable to ascertain the proposed ceiling heights based on the plans submitted, the proposed development fails to demonstrate that it would provide acceptable levels of light, ventilation, thermal comfort, and a sense of space for future occupants.

I have also considered whether a planning condition could secure compliance with the ceiling height requirement. Nevertheless, if an increase in building height were needed to achieve this ceiling height, it would require further consideration of the consequent impacts, and opportunities would need to be provided to interested parties to comment on the change. It would therefore be unreasonable to impose such a condition to ensure the ceiling heights would meet the requirement.

Policy 7 of the LP also requires that all new homes meet the national space standards. The London Plan also sets out minimum space standards for all new self-contained dwellings in Policy D6. Whilst there is no dispute that the two upper floor flats would meet the [name] and The London Plan standards in terms of minimum GIA, the dispute centres on whether the rear garden annex should be treated as a separate dwelling, and if so, whether it meets the relevant GIA requirements.

The extant planning permission for the annex as ancillary accommodation would no longer be relevant once the host property ceased to function as a single-family dwellinghouse. Irrespective of its lawfulness, I have considered the existing annex as part of the proposed development and assessed its physical and functional relationship with the ground-floor flat. Although separated from the flat by a long garden and containing a bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and an unlabelled living space, there is no proposal before me for a separate dwelling. I have therefore treated the existing annex as forming part of the ground-floor flat, as shown on the submitted plans and reflected in the description of development. On this basis, the proposed dwellings would meet the relevant GIA requirements.

Policy D6 of The London Plan states that private outdoor space should be provided for new dwellings, and it should be practical and should offer good amenity. In terms of communal outside amenity spaces, the policy states that these should be designed to be easily accessible from all the related dwellings. Policy 7 of the LP also supports the provision of both balconies and communal amenity space in flatted schemes.

Whilst the ground-floor flat would be provided with a generous garden well exceeding the requirements of The London Plan, the upper floor flats would not have their own private amenity space. Access of the upper-floor flats to the communal garden would be indirect, which would require the occupants to exit the building via the main entrance and pass through a narrow gap between the proposed car parking space and the building before reaching the side passage leading to the communal garden. This arrangement would not encourage future occupants to use the communal garden. Moreover, given that the first-floor flat would be a large two-bedroom flat, with potential for family occupation, this arrangement would not be satisfactory, as young children would be unlikely to be encouraged to play outside without direct supervision. Given this arrangement, the proposed communal garden would fail to provide future occupants of the upper floor flats with a suitable or practical form of outdoor amenity space.

A bedroom window serving the ground-floor flat would face the communal parking area, where 3 parking spaces are proposed. Although planting is proposed in front of the window and vehicular movements would be modest given the scale of the proposed development, one of the parking spaces would be positioned exceptionally close to the window. As such, vehicle manoeuvring would inevitably result in noise and headlight glare affecting the occupants of that bedroom, particularly during the evening and especially if the space were to be used by occupants of flats other than the ground-floor unit. Given this proximity, the proposed planting would not be a sufficient mitigation measure to offset the resulting noise and glare. Consequently, the proposed development would fail to provide future occupants of the ground-floor flat with acceptable living conditions, with noise and disturbance likely to occur, particularly in the evening or late at night when occupants may be trying to sleep, which would be detrimental to their well-being.

The appellant has submitted an alternative internal layout that reconfigures the living areas and bedrooms of the ground and first-floor flats, so that living areas of the first-floor flat would not abut the bedrooms of the ground-floor flat, as advised by LP Policy 9. Notwithstanding the above, I am satisfied that the imposition of an appropriate planning condition requiring enhanced internal sound insulation could adequately address the Council’s concerns regarding potential disturbance to the future occupants of the ground-level flat arising from the proposed stacking arrangement.

The rear bedroom window of the existing annex faces onto the boundary fencing. At my site visit, I note the outlook of this window would be restricted but would still retain some skyward outlook given its distance from the boundary. Soft landscaping is also proposed in front of the boundary fencing. For these reasons, the outlook of this window would be acceptable for the intended future occupants.

Loss of privacy of the future occupants is mentioned in the Council’s refusal reason. No harmful cross-looking is expected for the future occupants as the proposed fenestration of the habitable rooms would be positioned on the front and rear elevations with adequate distance from the neighbouring properties. Soft landscaping proposed outside of the front-facing windows would also provide as defensible space for the ground floor flat. I therefore find no unacceptable loss of privacy for the future occupants.

I am satisfied that the proposed development would provide acceptable outlook and privacy for the future occupants, and that it would not conflict with LP Policy 9 with particular regard to the stacking arrangement of the ground and first-floor flats. I also find that the floor area proposed for each unit would comply with the GIA requirements of LP Policy 7 and The London Plan Policy D6. Nonetheless, overall the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants due to the likely oppressive and warm living environment arising from the inadequate floor-to-ceiling heights, the lack of practical outdoor amenity space for the upper floor flats, and the noise and disturbance likely to be experienced by occupants of the ground-floor flat. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy D6 of The London Plan and Policy 7 of the LP, which collectively require that a high-quality living environment is provided for residents of new developments. It would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires that places are created to promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The Council has not raised objection regarding the provision of natural light to the proposed dwellings and the living conditions of the neighbours. Based on the evidence before me, I see no basis to reach a different conclusion. I acknowledge that the site is not located within a conservation area or within the setting of listed building, nor is it subject to designations with any relevant development restrictions. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in these respects is effectively neutral in my determination the appeal and does not weigh in its favour.

The proposal would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants of the proposed dwellings, contrary to the aforementioned policies of the LP and The London Plan. This is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council concedes that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The evidence indicates that the current supply is 3.4 years, which is a significant shortfall. In this circumstance, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged.

The evidence does not indicate that paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework applies to the proposal. Therefore, I shall consider the proposal against the test in paragraph 11(d)(ii). The proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, to which I attach significant weight.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would provide a family-sized unit and would be an efficient use of an existing residential building, contributing to housing supply with 2 additional housing units. The proposed development would therefore make a small but beneficial contribution to the choice of homes in the area and the supply of housing land; as well as providing social and economic benefits during construction and after occupation. Housing delivery is supported by the Framework and, therefore, this benefit weighs in favour of the proposal. However, the contribution that would be made by 2 additional dwellings would be modest and, therefore, the weight attached to these benefits is moderate.

The Council has not identified any harm in respect of the suitability of the location for housing from a settlement hierarchy perspective or in relation to other planning matters. However, the absence of harm in these respects weighs neither for, nor against, the proposal.

Overall, in the specific circumstances of this case, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the proposed development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.