Appeal 6003146

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the heading above differs from that on the original planning application form which described the development as ‘[name]. The above description was used in the decision notice by the Council and on the appeal form by the appellant. Whilst there is no evidence before me of an agreement to change the description during the determination of the application, the description above is more precise and reflects what is shown on the plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of this description.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: i) The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties at No 254 and No [address] with particular reference to disturbance; and ii) The effect of the proposal on the street scene and character of [address].

The proposed drive would be in front of the living room window of the neighbouring ground floor residence at No [address] on what is currently a front garden. A narrow path and a small, planted border sits between the proposed drive and the living room window.

The comings and goings of a vehicle associated with a single household would be frequent and outside of the control of the occupants of No 254 and would therefore cause an unacceptable level of disturbance to the occupants. This disturbance would arise from noise associated with the use of a vehicle and from the light spill entering the living room from vehicle headlights or reverse lights. Given the proximity of the drive to the window, the odour associated with exhaust fumes from any vehicle would also create disturbance and reduce the enjoyment of the use of the living room. The presence of the path and border in front of the window would be insufficient to mitigate these impacts.

Although there would be a level of background noise from the main road, the opening and closing of vehicle doors, together with the engine noise associated with pulling away would create more disturbance due to the proximity and the more impulsive nature of the noise.

The appellant has referred to an arrangement with the current occupants of No 254 to allow them to enter the drive from the side and park at an angle. However, it would not be possible to control this through enforceable planning conditions. Furthermore, although the current occupant of No 254 may not have an objection, I have made my assessment based on the impacts of the proposal to both current and future occupants.

Given the degree of separation and the relative alignment between the proposed drive and the ground floor window of No.248, there would not be an unacceptable level of harm on the living conditions of the occupants of that property.

The Havering Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises that the formation of parking spaces for first floor flats in front of ground floor living room or bedroom windows of neighbouring properties is unlikely to be acceptable due to noise and light pollution. In conclusion the proposed development would cause harm to the living conditions on the occupants of the neighbouring property at No 254 and therefore would not be supported by the SPD. The proposal would conflict with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan (HLP) which seeks to ensure the amenity and quality of life of existing and future residents is not adversely impacted.

[address] is characterised by terraces of properties set back from an access road which runs parallel to the main road. A significant number of nearby properties have driveways in the front gardens. The remaining front gardens on the street and associated vegetation help break this up and help reduce the appearance of a car dominated environment and therefore positively contribute to the character of the area.

The loss of the front garden at the appeal site would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, by further eroding the amount of verdant space in front of the line of terraces in this part of [address]. Whilst the small, planted border directly under the window of No 254 would be retained, this would not be readily observable from the street once a car is parked. The proposal does not include any soft landscaping within the site and given the limited space available, there would not be scope to secure sufficient soft landscaping to mitigate the harm through a planning condition.

The SPD advises that the loss of front gardens to parking has negative implications for the character of streets. In conclusion the proposed development would cause harm to the street scene along the part of [address] in the vicinity of the appeal site and would therefore not be in conformity with the guidance in the SPD. The proposed development would be in conflict with Policies 26 and 27 of the HLP which amongst other matters seek to respect, reinforce and complement the local street scene and retain and enhance landscape features that contribute positively to the setting and character of the area.

The proposal would provide a convenient parking space for the appellant which would address their personal circumstances. Criterion ii) of Policy 24 of the HLP supports proposals which provide parking close to homes with natural surveillance. However, the benefits of convenient parking and the associated benefits to the personal circumstances of the appellant do not outweigh the significant harm to living conditions and the character of the area and the associated conflict with the development plan I have identified above.

The provision of an off-street parking space would not increase the availability of parking in the vicinity as the provision of a crossover would result in a loss of on-street parking.

The proposed development would not result in harm to highway safety and would not conflict with Policy 23 of the HLP in this regard, which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure safe use of the highway. However, an absence of harm in this respect is a neutral factor.

Concerns regarding the manner in which the application was considered by the Council fall outside of the scope of this decision. The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme through amended plans. Whilst the appellant has indicated they would be willing to accept minor amendments to address design concerns, no revised plans were submitted.

As discussed above, there are a number of other instances where drives and crossovers have been implemented along the street. I am told that many of these were approved prior to current guidance and may not be directly comparable in whether they relate to ground floor or first floor flats. Furthermore, I have already identified above that the remaining gardens along the street help mitigate the harm associated with the front curtilage parking. As such, the presence of existing crossovers does not justify the harm I have identified above and the associated conflict with the development plan.

The harm to living conditions and the street scene and the associated conflict with Policies 7, 26 and 27 means that the development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. The material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.