Appeal 6003382

The appeal is dismissed.

I observed on my site visit that the first-floor internal layout and fenestration did not accord with the existing plans (drawing number: Y2343-2025-A10). Regardless of this, I have made my decision on the basis of the appeal proposal before me.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the supply of industrial land in Havering; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • highway and pedestrian safety.

The appeal site is an existing storage building (Use Class B8) with narrow alley space to the side and rear. The building is located to the rear of a shopping parade on [address]. The proposal involves a change of use of the building to a place of worship (Use Class F1), and the installation of 4 external lights on the side and rear elevations.

The building would constitute non-designated industrial floorspace. Policy 20 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (adopted November 2021) (the Local Plan) states that the loss of non-designated industrial land and floorspace in Havering will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the change of use will not lower the industrial capacity of the borough below that necessary to meet projected demand over the planning period; and where there is no market interest in the site following 1 year of continuous active marketing. The justification supporting text provides further information on the required scope of any marketing exercise.

Policy 20 also states that the wider land-use objectives of the Local Plan will be taken into account when considering proposals for the loss of non-designated industrial land, because the release of land which is no longer needed for employment use may assist in securing these objectives.

The marketing evidence only covers a period of approximately 5 months, from September 2024 to February 2025. There is limited detail on what the marketing exercise entailed, for example, whether it was marketed at a competitive price that genuinely reflects the market value in relation to use, condition, quality and location.

I have not been provided with any substantive evidence which assesses the potential impact on industrial capacity as a result of the proposal. [name] acknowledge that the existing capacity is relatively small in terms of floor area, such sites can provide an important source of capacity alongside other small sites. Therefore, the loss of industrial capacity that would result from the proposal could affect the ability to meet projected demand for industrial floorspace in Havering.

In terms of whether the proposal would assist with securing wider land use objectives of the Local Plan, no substantive evidence of need for the proposed use has been provided, nor has it been demonstrated that the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed use.

While it is suggested that the property has experienced extended periods of vacancy in the past, I am not presented with substantive evidence to support this. Regardless, even if there was evidence of long-term vacancy, there remains a requirement to demonstrate that an occupier has been actively sought through a robust marketing exercise. Vacancy without such an exercise would suggest that there is little genuine intent to secure an occupier. As a result, the issue of vacancy carries very limited weight in my decision.

It has also been suggested that the site location and the size of the premises would affect its ongoing suitability for industrial use. However, no convincing evidence has been provided to support this assertion, and notwithstanding this, if such issues were barriers to occupation, this would be evident as part of a robust marketing exercise.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the recent changes to the Use Classes Order, which promote a more flexible approach to the repurposing of buildings to reflect changing retail/business requirements. However, the appeal proposal before me does not benefit from any such flexibilities as it involves a change of use that still requires planning permission. Therefore, the Use Classes Order is not a determinative factor in my decision.

In conclusion, the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the supply of industrial land in Havering and would therefore not be in accordance with Policy 20 of the Local Plan and Policy E4 of the London Plan (March 2021) (the London Plan). These policies together seek to protect industrial land and floorspace to ensure that economic growth objectives are met. The proposal would also not accord with paragraph 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December

(the Framework) which seeks to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt, and places significant weight on the need to support economic growth and productivity.

While there would be an expectation that noise levels in mixed-use areas such as this would be higher than a predominantly residential area, I am not provided with any substantive technical evidence that identifies baseline noise impacts or the likely impacts of the proposal. Based on my observations from my site visit, and in the absence of any technical data, noise levels at the site and in the surrounding area were not excessive and were at a level that could be considered reasonable for mixed-use areas such as this.

The proposal would introduce potentially significant noise generating activities including from amplified music. This could lead to harm for nearby occupiers, particularly residential occupiers who are in very close proximity to the appeal site. I am not provided with any substantive evidence to suggest that the existing building fabric of the appeal building would be sufficient to mitigate impacts on these occupiers.

There is some uncertainty regarding the intended hours of operation, but even assuming the most limited potential hours, the proposal would still introduce risk of significant harm from noise on Saturdays and Sundays, times when nearby residential occupiers would likely be more sensitive to such impacts.

It has been suggested that noise impacts can be mitigated through planning conditions, including through a requirement to insulate or create internal sound barriers. The absence of technical noise evidence means that there is no information in terms of what level of noise needs to be mitigated, and therefore any condition which sought to attenuate noise levels to a certain level would not be precise or reasonable.

While planning conditions could, in principle, be imposed to require submission of a noise survey and to restrict amplified sound, such conditions would not be reasonable or relevant in this instance and therefore would not meet the relevant conditions tests set out in the Framework.

With regard to disturbance, the proposal could result in a significant intensification of use with more comings and goings. The appellant indicates that the building capacity is up to 50 people. Daily activities are expected to have different attendance rates, with 40 people expected to attend Sunday church service. There is a lack of detail regarding the nature of the daily community and church meetings that are expected to take place from Monday to Saturday, but these meetings could have an attendance of up to 50 people based on the suggested building capacity. Based on the hours of opening set out in the application form, the meetings could run into the evening on Monday to Saturday, which could increase the potential for adverse impacts relating to noise and disturbance.

Access to the appeal site is via a narrow access road off [address], which runs past the rear of residential uses. This would lead to a significant number of people passing by residential uses, which could lead to adverse impacts from pedestrian movement and talking. This could be exacerbated by individuals or groups of people congregating outside the appeal site.

While a planning condition could, in principle, control the building occupancy levels and set out measures to manage attendees in and around the site, I am not persuaded that it could fully mitigate the risks in this instance. Access is outside the site’s redline boundary with no line of sight from [address]. Therefore, attendees could navigate to the site without realising that attendance is restricted, and in doing so, this could lead to the same disturbance impacts on nearby occupiers, as it could result in people congregating outside the site even if they are precluded from entering.

The potential level of occupation would also make management more difficult. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that potential measures to manage attendees has been considered, for example through submission of a management plan, I would not be confident that a condition would be enforceable.

In conclusion, the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance and would therefore not be in accordance with Policies 7, 16 and 34 of the Local Plan and Policies D14 and S1 of the London Plan. These policies, taken together, support proposals for new social infrastructure where, amongst other things, they would avoid unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance which adversely impact existing residents. For the same reasons, it would also not accord with paragraphs 135 and 198 of the Framework.

The appeal site is located close to existing bus routes. However, it has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 2, which indicates that access to the site by public transport is relatively poor. The proposal does not provide vehicle or cycle parking facilities or any details of other measures that would help to incentivise travel by modes other than private vehicle.

A visitor survey has been provided which suggests that the current church congregation all travel by public transport. However, there is no substantive information on the survey methodology or when it was undertaken, and the information is partially redacted. There is also no certainty that the congregation surveyed would remain the same in future.

Moreover, there are approximately 40 survey entries whereas the proposed building capacity is 50 people, so even if the survey could be taken as a reliable indicator that the majority of current users would travel by public transport, there would still be potential for an increase in travel by non-sustainable modes of transport from users who have not been surveyed. As a result, the survey would only have very limited weight in my decision.

Consequently, the proposed use could lead to a significant increase in private vehicle journeys to the site. While there is a public car park close to the site, this would be unlikely to have sufficient capacity to accommodate parking for a significant proportion of the attendees, especially considering that there would likely be other visitors to the area who would use the car park.

If parking is not available in the car park, it is likely that vehicles will seek to park in on-street locations in the vicinity. I have not been provided with any substantive evidence relating to parking stress in the area and therefore cannot be certain that the surrounding streets would have capacity to accommodate additional parking without adversely impacting on highway and pedestrian safety, especially at times of peak capacity which are likely to correlate with busy periods for other businesses in the area.

With regard to site access, this is a single lane road off [address] with a narrow pavement for pedestrians along part of the road. The access road is shared with other businesses with private car parks located to the rear of the appeal site. Therefore, it is likely to be in regular use which introduces a significant point of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, given the potential number of people who would be accessing the appeal site.

While vehicles are likely to operate at low speed along this road, there is no formal passing area for vehicles exiting and entering the site. In situations where vehicles are attempting to enter and exit the site at the same time, the lack of a passing area would increase the likelihood that vehicles would perform more risky manoeuvres, for example pulling into the lane to the rear of [address] (where the appeal site is located) or reversing back onto [address] itself.

Such manoeuvres would represent a significant risk to pedestrian safety, especially at peak times when significant amounts of people would be utilising the access road or congregating outside the appeal site. There would also be a heightened risk of collisions with other vehicles.

Access to the nearby residential uses is via the lane to the rear of [address], therefore there would also be a risk to people entering and exiting their properties. There could also be an adverse impact on the operation of commercial premises to the rear of the appeal site, for example by precluding access by servicing vehicles.

Furthermore, the access road has poor visibility at either end, both turning right onto [address] to exit the site and visibility along the back lane for vehicles entering the site. This could hinder the view of drivers and result in an increased risk to highway users and pedestrians.

In conclusion, the proposal would harm highway and pedestrian safety and would therefore not be in accordance with Policies 16, 23 and 24 of the Local Plan, and Policies S1 and T4 of the London Plan. These policies, amongst other things, support new social infrastructure uses where they promote sustainable transport modes, ensure highway safety and do not increase road danger, especially in regard to pedestrians and cyclists. For the same reasons, the proposal would also not accord with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework. The Council have referred to Policy T6.4 of the London Plan in their reason for refusal, which would not be relevant insofar as the proposed use is concerned, and therefore I have not taken it into account in my determination of this main issue.

The proposal would provide a community facility that would help to promote social interaction, which accords with paragraphs 96 and 98 of the Framework.

A number of objections to the application and appeal were received. These objections raised various matters in addition to those covered under the main issues, including impacts on character, crime, anti-social behaviour and litter. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, these matters do not need to be explored in detail.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Equality Act). Decision makers must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

The PSED does not dictate that any particular decision must be reached but requires that the equality implications of a proposal are conscientiously considered and weighed appropriately within the overall planning balance depending on the context and potential impact of the decision. The ability of the worshipping community to practice their religion will be affected, by virtue of there being fewer places of worship to attend. However, the adverse impacts of dismissing the scheme on those with protected characteristics would still be justified and the decision would be necessary and appropriate, having regard to the harmful effects of the proposed development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and, having had regard to all other matters raised, there are no other material considerations which indicate a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.