Appeal 6003483

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has not provided all the policies it made its decision on. The policies within The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name], March 2021 (London Plan) have been requested several times for the Council to provide, which it has failed to do so. I have been able to find these policies and will duly consider them, as it should not prejudice either party.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the non-designated heritage asset of the [name]. • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to privacy and outlook. • Whether the proposal provides safe and sufficient parking.

[address] is a cul-de-sac road defined by three sets of terrace dwellings, with public open space located adjacent to the junction with [address]. Excluding the approved and constructed bungalow at the side of [address] (No.8) the dwellings on this road are all two storey properties. To the rear of the site is the cul-de-sac of [address] where many of the dwellings have a similar architectural style to those found on [address].

The proposal is a two storey dwelling, with the first floor partially in the roof space, and is set back slightly from the principal elevation of [site address] (No.12). The design of the proposed dwelling includes dormers in the front and rear elevations.

The bungalow to the side of No.8 has been referred to by both parties. This bungalow is viewable from the public highway of [address] and is a two storey property. However, the first floor in the bungalow is entirely within the loft space and is substantially set back from the principal elevation of No.8, with the entirety of the bungalow being set behind the ridgeline of No.8. Therefore, while there are some similarities between this recently constructed bungalow and the current proposal overall there are significant material differences.

The proposed dwelling would be viewable from the public realm of both [address] and [address]. The proposed front elevation would significantly be out of keeping with the predominant architectural style of [address], due to its limited set back, its materially different height and use of a dormer. In addition, the proposal would result in the loss of the visual break between two sets of terrace properties. The proposal, therefore, would harm the overall character and appearance of the street scene of [address]. The proposal would also not meet the standard in Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) that requires high quality design that is sympathetic to the local area.

The Council has detailed that the site forms part of the wider area known as [name], which is a non-designated heritage asset built as part of the Homes for Heroes following the First World War. On this basis the proposal also needs to be considered as it contributes to this heritage asset, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework, which requires a balanced judgement. Whilst the harm would be very limited to the asset as a whole; nevertheless, it would erode the overall character and appearance of the wider estate.

On this issue I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the local area. On this basis the proposal does not comply with Policy HC1 of the London Plan, which seeks to preserve or enhance heritage assets. In addition the proposal does not comply with Policies SPP6, SP2, DMD1 and DMD4 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2020- 2037 September 2024 (Local Plan), which in total states all development in [name] must integrate with the existing character, respect the character and appearance of heritage assets, the promotion of high quality design and development should positively contribute to the character of the area.

The Council’s Delegated Report makes it clear that it considers only the occupants of [address] (No.11) to be detrimentally harmed. Therefore, I will only focus on this conflict between the two parties under this main issue.

The proposed dwelling while facing towards, only directly faces a small proportion, of the side elevation of No.11. It is noted that the front door of No.11 is in the side elevation and would face the corner of the proposed dwelling. In addition, occupiers of No.11 would also be directly visible from the proposed kitchen window of the new dwelling when they entered or left their home. However, the impact on the occupiers of No.11s privacy and outlook would be for very limited periods of time. [name] accept that there would be an impact on the occupiers of No.11, I do not consider it to be detrimental to their living conditions.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions on neighbouring occupiers. On this basis the proposal complies with Policy D6 of the London Plan, which seeks to provide a high standard in living conditions. In addition, the proposal complies with Policy DMD1 of the Local Plan, which seeks to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring occupiers is considered.

The proposal seeks to create an electric vehicle and motorcycle space to the rear of the site and accessed via [address]. In addition, a shared pedestrian access for both No.11 and the proposed dwelling would be provided via [address]. It has not been demonstrated on the plans if the host dwelling of No.12 would still be able to park a car off the public highway or if the parking of a car will limit pedestrian access to the new dwelling.

I have noted that the bungalow to the side of No.8 had access to three motorcycle spaces shared with No.8, as well as cycle storage. [name] have not been provided with the full details of how this dwelling was approved, given that this bungalow is a single dwelling within very close proximity I have given this development significant weight in my decision.

However, I note both the Council and the [name] has raised the issue that the site might not have access over [address]. Therefore, the proposed dwelling might not be able to provide any parking provision. The proposal could also lead to the host dwelling no longer having any parking provision for cars. This is a material difference to the dwelling to the side of No.8 that showed joint parking for motorcycle spaces for both host and proposed dwelling.

[name] have noted that the appellant has stated that there is parking provision on [address] and [address] for local permit holders, there is no evidence before me to suggest that future occupiers of this dwelling would gain a permit. In addition, the requirement of parking permits in the local area demonstrates on street parking is already limited. The appellant has also not provided any further evidence that they do have access over [address].

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal has not demonstrated that safe and suitable parking provision could be provided. On this basis the proposal does not comply with Policy DMT2 of the Local Plan, which seeks to in areas less well connected to provide the minimum necessary parking and restricts new residents from accessing parking permits within existing and proposed controlled parking zones.

Policies T1 and T6.1 of the London Plan, which seeks to ensure development is well connected to sustainable means of transport and provides a limit on the maximum amount of parking spaces. However, from the evidence provided I do not see any conflict with these specific policies.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council accepts that they cannot demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land as required by Paragraph 78 of the Framework. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, which is a material consideration of significant weight, is engaged. It states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken 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.

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the Local Plan, with the harm to the character and appearance of the local area including that to the non-designated heritage asset and the lack of parking provision.

The proposal would lead to the creation of a single dwelling that would have a limited contribution to the housing supply in the borough. In addition, there would be limited benefits to services and facilities within the local area. There would also be limited short term economic benefits from the construction of the dwelling.

However, I have concluded that there would be significant harm on the character and appearance of the area, including the limited harm to the non-designated heritage asset and in addition there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate safe and suitable parking provision.

The adverse impacts would, therefore, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.