Appeal 6004142

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to technical space standards and private outdoor amenity space; • highway safety, with particular regard to the level of parking provision and the proposed crossover.

The appeal site is located on the corner of [address] and [address], in a predominantly residential area. The proposal involves the erection of a new residential dwelling on garden land currently associated with [site address] .

The site occupies a prominent position in the area and is highly visible when approaching from both directions along [address]. There is currently a single storey garage and storage structure on the site, which would be a neutral factor in terms of its contribution to the wider character of the area.

The plot is irregular in shape, tapering to a much narrower width to the rear. The proposal includes a stepped layout in an attempt to articulate the rear element and create separation between the side boundary to mitigate the impact of the reduced width. This articulation would not be evident from the front elevation, where the proposed building would read as a bulky, cramped addition. Although it would be more evident from certain views at the rear of the site, I am not persuaded that it would successfully mitigate the building’s cramped appearance. The new built form would coalesce with no. [site address] despite the stepped layout and would read as a single bulky mass, which would be emphasised by the site’s prominent corner location.

The height, style and front building line of the proposal would accord with other properties along the north side of [address]. However, it would be noticeably smaller in terms of width and would project beyond the established building line along [address]. These factors would accentuate the cramped nature of the proposal and emphasise its incongruity within the streetscene.

I acknowledge comments relating to the garage structure opposite the site on [address], but this would have a neutral effect on local character as it is low-rise and not unduly prominent.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a recently completed scheme at [address], on the opposite corner of [address] and [address]. This site shares similarities with the appeal site in that it is a corner site of similar size that formed part of the garden of an adjacent property. However, this scheme is situated on a more regular shaped plot and maintains a much greater separation distance on the side boundary, which more closely aligns with the established building line along [address]. As a result, this scheme does not have a cramped appearance and is significantly less impactful than the appeal scheme in terms of local character, despite being a taller, two storey typology. Therefore, this permission would only have very limited weight in my determination of this appeal.

In conclusion, the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area and would therefore not be in accordance with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (adopted November 2021) (the Local Plan) which promotes high quality design that, amongst other things, is informed by, respects and complements the distinctive qualities, identity, character and geographical features of the site and local area. The Council have referred to Policy 10 of the Local Plan and Policy D4 of the London Plan (March 2021) (the London Plan) in their reason for refusal. However, these policies would not be relevant insofar as impact on character and appearance is concerned, and therefore I have not taken them into account in my determination of this main issue.

The proposal would also not accord with paragraphs 131, 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) which, amongst other things, seek the delivery of good design which reflects relevant policy and guidance and is sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment.

Policy 7 of the Local Plan states that residential developments will be supported where they meet National Space Standards and the London Plan requirement for floor to ceiling heights, which are set out in London Plan Policy D6. The plans (drawing number: 24/4/2/2) show that the proposal is for a 2 storey, 2 bedroom 4 person dwelling. Such dwellings are required to have a minimum Gross Internal Area (GIA) of [address] metres (sqm) and a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5 metres (m) for at least 75 per cent of the GIA.

The application form states the total GIA gained would be 75sqm, while the Council refer to a figure of 76.22sqm in the officer delegated report. Even if I were to assume the higher figure is correct, the proposal would fail to meet the required minimum internal space standard. Furthermore, the appellant’s statement suggests a consistent ceiling height of 2.4m throughout all habitable rooms, while the Council refer to figures of 2.39m at ground floor and 2.16m at first floor in the officer delegated report. Even if I were to assume the higher figure is correct, the proposal would fail to meet the required minimum floor to ceiling height.

Although the plans suggest that some individual rooms would provide sufficient internal space to meet room size requirements, these apply alongside the other requirements referred to above, which the proposal fails to address.

The appellant has referred me to a permitted residential scheme in Croydon where, it is suggested, the Council approved the development despite it not meeting the size requirements for the overall floor area. However, based on the delegated report for this scheme, the proposal exceeded minimum space standards for each proposed dwelling. Irrespective of this, I note that the proposal involved extensions to an existing building rather than the erection of a separate dwelling, and, as this proposal was in a different local authority area, I cannot be certain that the local policy context is comparable to that of Havering. I also note the comments with regard to the existing property at no. [site address] not complying with internal space standards. However, I am not provided with any evidence regarding the planning permission that was granted for this property, in particular any considerations regarding these standards. Taking these issues into account, these examples are not determinative in my decision which I have assessed on its merits.

With regard to the proposed rear garden space, while this would be irregularly shaped, it would exceed minimum space standards for private amenity space and would be practical in terms of its shape and utility, as it would allow for a broad range of activities that could be expected to be accommodated in such space, for example, gardening and play.

In conclusion, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. While the proposed rear garden area would accord with policy requirements, the proposal would not meet relevant technical space standards relating to internal floor area and floor to ceiling heights and consequently would cause harm in relation to the health and wellbeing, comfort and overall quality of life of future occupiers. Therefore, it would not accord with Policy 7 of the Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan, which, amongst other things, seek high quality design through adherence to relevant standards. It would also not accord with paragraphs 131, 135 and 139 of the Framework which, amongst other things, seek the delivery of good design with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The appeal site has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 1b. Policy 24 of the Local Plan and Policy T6.1 of the London Plan set out minimum and maximum vehicle parking standards for residential development in areas with a PTAL rating of 0-1, based on the number of bedrooms proposed. The proposal would have a requirement to provide a minimum of 1 space.

The appeal site includes the existing property at no. [site address] , which currently has 2 off-street parking spaces. The existing property has 3 bedrooms based on information in the application form and drawing number: 24/4/2/1 and would therefore be expected to provide a minimum of 2 spaces (rounded up from 1.5 spaces).

The proposal includes amendments to the front parking area to provide 1 space each for the proposed new dwelling and the existing dwelling at no. 1. While this would meet the required parking standards for the proposed dwelling, it would result in the existing dwelling falling below the minimum level parking requirement.

Consequently, the proposal could increase the level of vehicles parking on-street in the area. [address] and [address] have unrestricted parking and are relatively narrow. On my site visit I observed a number of cars parked along these roads, which affected two-way traffic movement. [address] is a cul-de-sac and would therefore be less likely to experience high traffic volumes, [address] could experience higher volumes. The displacement of 1 vehicle as a result of the proposal could therefore exacerbate the current situation.

On my site visit I also observed cars parked on the verge on the corner of [address] and [address], within the redline boundary of the appeal site. The proposal would introduce boundary treatments on this corner which would limit the ability of cars to park here in the future, which could have positive benefits in terms of visibility splays and reducing conflict with pedestrians.

However, I am not provided with substantive evidence that such benefits are dependent on the appeal scheme. The corner element is within the appellant’s ownership and I have not been made aware of any restrictions that would preclude the appellant installing a fence or other barriers to preclude cars parking here in the event that the appeal is dismissed. Therefore, the identified benefits would not be unique to the proposal and would only have very limited weight in my decision.

The proposal includes an extension to the existing crossover to provide vehicular access to the proposed and existing dwellings on the appeal site. The Council refer to the London Borough of [name] Policy (April

([name] guidance), which sets out guidance relating to vehicle crossings. There is no evidence that it has been subject to public consultation, hence it would only have limited weight in my decision.

I have not been provided with detailed measurements in terms of the crossover dimensions or the precise distance from the nearby junction, hence it is unclear whether the proposal would be consistent with the [name] guidance.

However, in terms of the impact on highway safety, the proposal would be unlikely to affect the ability of users of the highway to observe and respond to vehicular movements relating to the appeal site. Any vehicle movements would likely be at a low speed which would also help to reduce the potential for collisions or other impacts.

Overall, I find that insufficient parking provision would harm highway safety but the proposed crossover would not. However, on balance, the proposal would not accord with Policies 23 and 24 of the Local Plan, and Policy T4, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan. These policies, taken together, aim to ensure safe and efficient use of the highway and demonstrate that adverse impacts on the transport network are avoided or, where necessary, mitigated; and require proposals to meet relevant parking standards and avoid an increase in road danger. For the same reasons, it would also not accord with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework.

The proposal lacks information to determine whether it would conform to standards set out in the [name] guidance. However, as I have found no conflict with the policies of the Development Plan insofar as they relate to crossovers, I am content that the proposal achieves the underlying aim of the [name] guidance in terms of mitigating impacts on the highway network.

Several matters were raised by interested parties, including the potential for impacts relating to overshadowing and privacy. As the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, these matters do not need to be explored in detail. I also note the appellant’s comments with regard to the Council’s handling of the proposal. However, I confirm I have determined the appeal on its planning merits.

The Council have indicated that they cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, and that results of the most recent [name] show that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years.

Consequently, with regard to paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal accords with policies in the development plan and the Framework which encourage the supply of new housing and will assist in addressing the Council’s current housing land supply shortfall. The Framework is clear that small sites can make an important contribution to housing delivery, therefore I ascribe moderate weight to the provision of one additional home and economic benefits of construction and local expenditure. However, the adverse impacts on character and appearance, living conditions and highway safety would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and 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.