Appeal 6004762

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has made an application for an award of costs against the Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal site is situated within the Wanstead Village Conservation Area (CA) and borders the Wanstead Park CA. Accordingly, I have applied the duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The Council raise concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on both the Wanstead Village and Wanstead Park CA and the design of the scheme, in relation to its effect on the character and appearance of the area. The appellant has framed the matter in a similar way. For reasons of precision, I have therefore separated the first refusal reason into three main issues.

The appellant has submitted an amended unilateral undertaking at appeal stage. I have discussed this matter further in the ‘Other Matters’ section.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the Wanstead Village CA; • the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the Wanstead Park CA, with regard to its setting; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to the provision of internal space and outdoor amenity space;

The appeal site comprises a detached property on [address]. The plot occupies a corner position at the junction of [address] and [address]. There are stables and a garage to the rear of the site. Residential development along [address] is predominantly characterised by large dwellings set on spacious plots. The properties are generally similar in their size and design however there are some examples of more modern properties.

The Wanstead Village CA is distinguished by its well-preserved village character, despite the area expanding into a bustling and busy town centre. To my mind, its special interest and significance is derived from its very green and open character, well-preserved core historic elements and townscape quality. The existing dwelling is set back from the junction with [address], and despite the presence of the garage and stables, this creates a sense of openness and spaciousness. In this regard, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Wanstead Village CA.

The existing garage fronts onto [address], however within this context, it clearly reads as an ancillary structure, appearing subservient to the main dwelling along [address]. The existing stable also reads as an ancillary structure.

The proposed dwelling would be set on a relatively small plot. As a result, the dwelling would have a wide front elevation, taking account of the proposed side extension, and would be narrow in depth. This form would contrast with that of the adjacent properties, along both [address] and [address], where properties are generally much larger and of a similar size and form.

The ridge height would also be considerably lower than that of the neighbouring properties along both [address] and [address] and the steep pitched roof, with large side dormer, would bear little to no resemblance to the roof form of the adjacent properties. Cumulatively, the overall size, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling would be at odds with surrounding residential development. As a result, the dwelling would appear awkward and incongruous within the street scene, eroding the townscape quality of the CA.

Although at present the garage is served by its own access, the scheme would introduce domestic paraphernalia such as bin storage, cycle storage, parking and additional boundary treatment. In this regard, the new dwelling would clearly read as a separate dwelling and detract from the sense of openness and spaciousness towards the corner junction. The introduction of landscaping would fail to overcome these concerns.

As such, the proposed dwelling would harm the townscape quality and sense of openness and spaciousness within the CA. In this regard, the scheme would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and fail to preserve its significance.

The appeal site also borders the Wanstead Park CA. The significance of the CA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is derived from the historic interest of the landscaped park and its amenity as a publicly accessible open space. The appeal site sits on the ‘[name] of the CA and outside of the actual park. In this regard, it makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the CA.

Given the site’s location on the fringes of the CA and outside the actual park and the overall scale of the development, the scheme would not harm the significance of the CA, or the ability to appreciate its significance.

As noted, the appeal site is of a restricted size; therefore, the proposed dwelling would have a wide front elevation and would be narrow in depth. This form and layout would contrast with that of the adjacent properties, particularly those on [address], where there is a relatively consistent pattern of development.

The ridge height would also be considerably lower than that of the neighbouring properties. The steep pitched roof, with side dormer, would bear little to no resemblance to the roof form of the adjacent properties, particularly those along [address]. The scheme would also reduce the sense of spaciousness towards the corner junction, as set out. Overall, when considered as whole, the proposed dwelling would appear awkward and incongruous in the street scene.

The appellant contends that the scale of the dwelling would allow it to appear subservient. However, sat amongst mainly much larger residential properties, its small scale would contrast with surrounding development.

I accept that there are examples of roof dormers and rear extensions within the surrounding area, including a recent approval for a rear extension at [site address] . The proposed dormer may also not be readily visible within wider views of the area, and the extensions may comply with relevant guidance. Nonetheless for the reasons set out, as a whole, the proposed development would fail to respect or integrate well with surrounding residential development.

The original brickwork would be reinstated to match other neighbouring properties and the windows at the first floor would be updated. The proposed finish of the roof, windows and doors may also respect surrounding development. These factors would however not outweigh the harm identified.

Overall, for the reasons set out, the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. As set out above, I have identified harm to the significance of the Wanstead Village CA. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, the degree of harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset would be less than substantial. On a scale, it would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm. 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 deliver one additional 2-bedroom dwelling in an area close to public transport facilities on already developed land. It would therefore make a small contribution towards increasing housing supply, at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. It may utilise a brownfield and small site and support small and medium enterprise housebuilders and the dwelling may be wheelchair accessible. There would be some social benefits in this regard. It would also re-use an existing building and improve insulation, thereby promoting sustainability.

There would be some economic benefits generated during the construction of the dwelling, and on the subsequent occupation of the dwelling there would be more long-term spending in the local area. Future occupiers would also contribute to local council tax. The scheme would involve the removal of a shed, stables and some hardstanding, which would be replaced by soft landscaping or brick setts.

Whilst the scheme may help address housing need, the evidence indicates that most of the need is for dwellings with over three bedrooms. The appellant contends that the dwelling would be affordable housing, however the application form states that the scheme would not include affordable housing. It is also stated that the dwelling would be designed to minimise crime and antisocial behaviour, however there is relatively limited details on how this would be achieved before me.

Paragraph 202 of the Framework states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. Given the small scale of the development, the public benefits of the proposal carry limited weight. On the basis that paragraph 212 of the Framework establishes that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset, I am not satisfied that the benefits would be sufficient to outweigh the degree of harm identified.

In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, and fail to preserve the significance of the Wanstead Village CA. It would therefore be contrary to Policies LP26 and LP33 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (RLP) and Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high-quality design that respects local character and conserves the significance of heritage assets. Living conditions of future occupiers

Policy LP29 of the RLP and Policy D6 of the LP require a two-bedroom, three-person, two storey dwelling to have a gross internal floor area (GIA) of [address] metres (sqm). Policy D6 also requires a minimum ceiling height of 2.5 metres (m) for at least 75 per cent of the GIA. This is to ensure that new housing is of adequate quality, especially in terms of daylight penetration, ventilation, cooling, and sense of space.

The appellant contends that the gross internal floor area would measure 81sqm. They set out that loft level ceiling heights would range between 2.5m and 2.9m and the dwelling would provide a minimum ceiling height of 2.5m at 96.55 per cent of the GIA of the whole property. They also state that the proposed elevations clearly indicate the internal height levels.

However, the first floor of accommodation would be situated within the roof of the dwelling, which has a steep pitch. Furthermore, the height lines on the first-floor floor plan appear to indicate that the height would not exceed 2m. As such, based on the evidence before me and the lack of sectional drawings, I cannot be sure that at least 75 percent of the GIA would meet the minimum ceiling height requirements.

The bedrooms appear to meet requirements strictly in terms of floor area, however the double bedroom would fall marginally short of the required width, as set out in Policy D6 of the LP. Additionally, as set out, I cannot be sure that the first-floor accommodation, including the bedrooms, would meet the required minimum ceiling height.

Whilst the Council may have validated the application without section drawings, this does not justify finding no harm in this regard.

Overall, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the usable floor area, including the bedrooms, would meet the required minimum ceiling height. I therefore cannot be sure that the property would meet the required standards in relation to internal space.

The Council contend that although the proposal would provide the minimum amount of outdoor amenity space required, its layout and configuration would result in space that is poorly usable and constrained.

Small garden areas would be provided to the rear and sides of the site, whilst most of the garden area would be situated to the front of the dwelling. The areas to the side and rear would be narrow and awkwardly positioned, set in between the sides and rear of the property and the side and rear boundaries of the site.

In relation to the area to the front of the property, given the existing and proposed boundary treatments, I am satisfied that despite being situated to the front of the dwelling, the garden area would ensure adequate privacy for future occupiers. Whilst a bin and cycle store would be situated within this area, these are relatively small in size. On balance, I am satisfied that the scheme would provide an acceptable standard and size of outdoor amenity space for future occupiers.

To conclude on the main issue, whilst the scheme would ensure adequate outdoor amenity space, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the dwelling would meet the required internal space standards and therefore provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. As a whole, the scheme would fail to comply with Policies LP26 and LP29 of the RLP and Policy D6 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.

The Council’s fourth reason for refusal refers to the requirement for a legal agreement to secure financial contributions towards a [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) contribution. The Council states that these are required to ensure suitable mitigation so that no adverse effects on the integrity of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation will arise.

The appellant has challenged this requirement, stating that an obligation would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. They also outline how various other approved developments did not submit such agreements. Nevertheless, at appeal stage they have submitted a revised unilateral undertaking which put forwards a SAMM and SANG contribution.

[name] found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in all other respects it would have been necessary for me to consider the contents of the legal agreement and whether the requested contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable. However, as I have found that the scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to do so as it would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application including the lack of a verified site visit, the potential change of planning officer and what they consider to be unreasonable behaviour. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The Council sets out that the site forms part of the setting of the [name] listed Church of [name], the [name]* registered Wanstead Park and the [name] listed [name] and Gates at the Church of [name]. It contends that no harm to the significance of the [name] is envisioned. It does not come to a finding on the effect on the park and other church. In accordance with my duty set out in Section 66(1) of the Act, had I found the scheme acceptable with regards to the main issues, I would have sought further views on the effect of the development on the listed/registered buildings and park and considered this matter further. However, I am dismissing the appeal, I have not considered it further.

My attention has been drawn to several allowed appeals and approved planning applications. The scheme at 10 Swindon Close1 did not impact any designated heritage assets. Additionally, the effect on the character and appearance of the area was not a main issue. Accordingly, it is not comparable to the appeal before me.

The scheme at 76 Aldersbrook Road2 is some distance away from the appeal site, within a different CA, and therefore viewed within a different context. Additionally, this appeal pre-dates the RLP and I do not have details of the relevant policy context before me. I can therefore not be satisfied that it is directly comparable to the scheme before me. 1 APP/W5780/W/21/3266612 2 APP/W5780/A/14/2226193

The appeal at [name] Road3 allowed a dormer on an existing dwelling. The scheme before me does not solely seek planning permission for a dormer. I have clearly set out why, as a whole, the proposed new dwelling would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the Wanstead Village CA. Again, this scheme is not comparable to the appeal before me.

Regarding the scheme at 50 Buckingham Road4, this site is some distance away from the appeal site, and situated within a different context, in a different CA. It is therefore not comparable to the scheme before me. In any case, from the evidence before me, it appears that the dwelling was of a similar height and size to that of neighbouring properties. The scheme at Harpenden Road5 is also some distance away from the appeal site and is therefore viewed within a different context and CA. I note that no section drawings were provided in this scheme and the Council used a planning condition to confirm required internal heights. However, there is a lack of evidence before me to demonstrate that such a condition would be capable of being met and thus whether it would be reasonable. It would therefore not be appropriate to use such a condition in this case.

The schemes at [name] Road6, Harley Court7 and [address] Road8 had a shortfall in terms of the amount of outdoor amenity space provided. However, the Council accept that the amount of outdoor space provided would be acceptable but raise concerns regarding the quality of it in this appeal. In any case, I have not found harm in this regard. Whilst there may have been no sectional drawings submitted with the Wanstead Park Road scheme, this does not justify finding no harm in this regard.

From the information before me, it also appears that the schemes at 2 Felstead Road9 and 48 Aldersbrook Road10 had a shortfall of outdoor amenity space. I do not raise any concerns in this regard.

The appellant contends that the contemporary design approach takes cues from other contemporary properties allowed in the immediate surrounding area. However, the scheme at [address] appears to involve a dwelling of similar size to that of neighbouring properties.

The dwelling at [address] is of a similar height to neighbouring properties. There is also not the same degree of consistency in built form along this part of the road, in comparison to the relevant part of [address], directly adjacent to the appeal site.

I have little information before me regarding the schemes at 31 and [address]. I am therefore unable to draw any direct comparisons between these applications and the appeal scheme before me.

The appellant suggests that the proposed extensions could be achieved through permitted development rights, explaining how this further demonstrates the limited heritage sensitivity of the specific part of the Wanstead Park CA. However, there is 3 APP/W5780/D/24/3353879 4 0452/25 5 2169/22 6 1490/24 7 1638/24 8 1917/22 9 3610/23 10 3746/23 little evidence before me to support this claim. I am therefore unable to conclude that this offers a realistic or probable prospect and consequently it does not represent a legitimate fallback position. In any case, I have found that the scheme would not harm the significance of the Wanstead Park CA.

The appellant also sets out that the majority of properties along [address] have converted their garages into habitable space. However, there is little information regarding this before me. In any case, habitable space ancillary to a main dwelling is not comparable to a separate dwelling sat on its own plot. Again, even if the existing garage comprises a bedroom on the first floor, it is not an independent property sat on its own plot.

The lack of third-party objections is a neutral consideration that does not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal. I have found that the scheme would not harm the significance of the Wanstead Park CA, or the ability to appreciate its significance. It may also not harm neighbouring living conditions and provide appropriate levels of outlook for future occupiers. It may ensure biodiversity net gain, minimal loss of vegetation and provide adequate parking and cycle and refuse storage. It may also comply with various other policies and parts of the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code. These are however also considered neutral factors.

The appellant indicates that the Council introduced new arguments that were not brought up at the pre-application discussion stage. However, I am mindful that pre-application discussions are informal and not binding on any future decision the Council may make once a proposal has been subject to the formal planning process. In any case, the Council set out in its case officer report that the pre-application discussion response advised that the scheme was unacceptable and would not be supported.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and therefore a presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. However, with reference to paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, an exception is provided where policies in the Framework that protect assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Footnote 7 of the Framework lists designated heritage assets (which includes conservation areas) as one such asset of importance. I have found that the proposal would harm the significance of the Wanstead Village CA and this harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. It would therefore not accord with policies of the Framework. Consequently, those policies provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several legal judgements which relate to paragraph 11(d) of the Framework and the titled balance. However, for the reasons set out above, with regard to paragraph 11(d), the policies in the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole and the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal is dismissed.