Appeal 6003857

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is situated within the Woodford Wells Conservation Area (CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

Through the appeal proceedings, the appellant has provided additional information in the form of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Daylight & [name]. This information was not before the Council at the time it made its decision. Both documents relate directly to the reasons for refusal.

The Council has referred to the procedural guide for planning appeals in England, relating to whether amendments should be accepted during the appeal process.

However, the additional information does not represent a change or amendment to the appeal proposal, which remains the same as that which was considered by the Council. The information provided through the appeal therefore does not amount to a different application which in my view would warrant specific re-consultation. For these reasons, I have accepted the submitted AIA and Daylight & [name] as part of the appellant's case.

The main issues are:  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on trees, and whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [name];  the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, specifically the host dwelling at [site address] and the property known as [address], with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and privacy; and,  whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

[name] is defined by its semi-wild open spaces, mature chestnut trees lining [address], and dense, established vegetation. The influence of Epping Forest is evident in the CA with the area having a notable verdant character. Development in the CA is relatively loose knit, within mostly spacious plots, surrounding the areas of semi-natural open spaces which form the heart of the CA. Overall, this gives a semi-rural and village feel to the area. Insofar as is relevant to the appeal before me, the significance of the CA is derived in part from its aesthetic value.

The appeal site comprises a detached two storey dwelling, which forms part of a frontage of townscape importance. Buildings along the frontage of this part of the CA are set back from the highway edge behind landscaped areas and tree lined streets. Consequently, the verdant front and rear garden of the host dwelling within the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the area’s character and appearance.

To the rear of the buildings, single storey, modestly proportioned outbuildings are frequent, accessed via [address]. The appeal proposal relates to the extension and conversion of the single storey garage within the appeal site, to create a separate detached dwelling.

The sub-division of the appeal site to create two separate residential curtilages would disrupt the spacious layout of development within the CA, representing a cramped development form. A two storey dwelling in the location proposed would be notably at odds with the otherwise single storey form of development to the rear of the buildings fronting [address]. Rather than appearing subordinate in scale, the result of this would be that the dwelling would be conspicuous and obtrusive.

Visually, the proposed dwelling would be primarily experienced from [address]. Nevertheless, this vantage point is still a valuable point of the CA, whereby the primacy of the scale of the buildings fronting [address], and the verdant character of their rear gardens is experienced. The appeal proposal would erode this distinction, and subsequently the verdant character, which as above is an important characteristic of the character and appearance of the CA.

The AIA which has been provided to support the appeal focuses solely on two tree specimens, suggesting the effect of the development will be limited to minor and manageable encroachment upon the root protection areas of the trees. I note that the site address referred to is not the appeal site, but the plan and photographs within the document do appear to relate to the appeal site.

However, having visited the appeal site, I remain to be satisfied that the AIA represents a comprehensive assessment of all notable tree specimens which could be affected by the appeal proposal. In the absence of a robust and accurate assessment of the appeal site, I cannot be satisfied that matters of tree protection could be adequately addressed through conditions. Any adverse effects to the longevity of tree specimens arising from the proposal would compound the above identified harm in respect to the wider character and appearance of the area and the CA.

Based on the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including on trees, and it would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name].

The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies LP26 and LP33 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan) and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), all of which outline in part that development should be of a high quality, and conserve or enhance the character and significance of the historic environment.

In addition, I have identified conflict arising from the proposal in relation to Policy D3 of the LP, which seeks amongst other matters for developments to positively respond to local distinctiveness. It would also be contrary to Policy LP7 of the Local Plan, which relates to back garden development, stating that the subdivision of existing plots to create new residential development will only be supported where it meets the design requirements of Policy LP26.

Policies LP38 and LP39 of the Local Plan seek to protect the Council’s natural environment, including supporting the retention of existing trees and landscape features. This is broadly in line with Policies G6 and G7 of the LP. Based on my findings in relation to the inadequacy of the submitted AIA, I also find conflict with Policies LP38 and LP39 of the Local Plan and Policies G6 and G7 of the LP.

In relation to living conditions, Policy LP26 of the Local Plan, seeks for development to not result in an adverse impact upon neighbouring occupiers, including in respect to privacy, sunlight and outlook. Whilst the appellant has referred to compliance with the National Model Design Code standards, I do not have a copy of these, nor is it suggested that their compliance is specifically required by the Local Plan.

Spatially the proposed dwelling would maintain a close relationship with the host dwelling at [site address] (No 589). The modest separation distance between the two dwellings would mean that the built form associated with the proposal would become a prominent and dominating feature to the rear outlook for the occupiers of No 589. The effect of this would be compounded due to the orientation of the appeal site, meaning that in the late afternoon, early evening, the appeal proposal would contribute to a shadowing of the rear garden and the rear elevation of No 589.

Moreover, the proposed dwelling would feature windows at first floor which would be orientated towards the rear elevation of No 589. Whilst the rooms which these windows would serve include a landing area and a bathroom (which could reasonably be conditioned to be obscurely glazed), they also include the proposed main window to the lounge / family room. The outlook from this window would have direct line of sight into the windows on the rear elevation of No 589, which due to the modest separation distance, would impose material harm to the privacy of the occupiers of No 589.

[address] forms a block of flats which lies to the south of the appeal site. The built form associated with the flats is relatively close to the shared boundary. From the nearest rear windows, the two storey built form proposed would be prominent, albeit would feature predominantly in oblique views.

Nevertheless, the window proposed to serve bedroom 2 would look directly into the shared outdoor communal space serving [address]. Given that this window would be the sole window to serve a habitable room, it would not be appropriate for it to be obscurely glazed. The outlook from this window would impose a loss of privacy to the occupiers of [address].

It is suggested that such relationships are common within established suburban settings. However, little further detail has been provided which would result in me concluding that the substandard arrangements proposed are justified in this context.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, specifically the host dwelling at No 589 and the property known as [address], with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and privacy.

In this regard, the proposal would conflict with Policy LP26 of the Local Plan. The Council’s reason for refusal in relation to this main issue also refers to Policy LP30 of the Local Plan, but this refers to householder extensions and is therefore of little relevance to the appeal proposal before me.

The proposed dwelling would be relatively constrained within the site boundaries. The ground floor window on the south elevation would be so close to the site boundary that its outlook would be heavily constrained. Nevertheless, I note that this room is relatively modest in its extent and would also be served by another window facing northwards which would have an improved outlook, towards the proposed parking space and the vehicular access from [address] beyond.

Although the windows of the front elevation would be towards the proposed boundary fence which would divide the plots, there would be adequate distance from the windows to the fence such that its presence would not be overbearing to the outlook from these windows.

However, owing to the close spatial relationship between the host dwelling and the proposed dwelling already identified above, the occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be overlooked both within the dwelling, and through use of the garden area, by the rear windows of No 589, to the detriment of their privacy.

Even in the acknowledgment that the internal floor area of the dwelling would meet nationally described space standards, and that the overall outlook would be adequate, the loss of privacy experienced through the relationship with the host dwelling would create an inadequate living environment for future occupiers. The proposal would therefore provide unsuitable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy.

In this respect the proposal would conflict with Policy LP26 of the Local Plan which in part requires for development proposals to provide high standards of accommodation, including in respect to the quality of internal and external space. It would also be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP which requires housing development to be of high quality design.

The appeal site is within the Zone of Influence for the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider this further.

I am aware that the site is proximate to the [name] listed building known as the Anti Air War Memorial. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The significance of the listed building is derived in part from its commemorative value and visual prominence.

Nevertheless, given the location of the proposed development, I consider that it would preserve the setting of the nearby listed building and the contribution it makes to its significance. I note that the Council has no concerns in this regard either. However, a lack of harm in respect to the setting of the listed building does not alter my overall conclusions as set out in my main issues above.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) describes heritage assets as an irreplaceable resource, that should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Paragraph 212 of the Framework is clear that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

Given my findings above, I find the harm to the CA to be at the lower end of less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would lead to the creation of a new dwelling which would provide a benefit to the Council’s housing land supply. It would also bring about other modest benefits such as employment during construction. Given the extent of the development, the public benefits associated would be modest, but I have nevertheless assigned them moderate positive weight. However, they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA, to the conservation of which the Framework requires that great weight be given.

The Council concedes that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework indicates that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 of the Framework lists designated heritage assets (which includes conservation areas) as such assets of importance.

I have concluded that the development would result in harm to the significance of the CA which would not be outweighed by public benefits. This provides a strong reason for refusing the development. Consequently, irrespective of the level of shortfall, paragraph 11(d)ii is not engaged and the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development in this instance.

In addition to the above, I have identified harm to the living conditions of both existing and prospective occupiers which also weighs against the development.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the Framework, and it would not be in accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.