Appeal 6005087

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of six dwellinghouses, with associated car parking and landscaping on land to the rear of [address], [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0162.25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have taken the site address from the statement of common ground (SoCG) as this appears to most accurately describe the location of the appeal site.

The Council list 4 reasons for refusal (RfR) on the decision notice. However, the Council have confirmed that RfR 4 is an informative note. With regards to the second RfR, the Council confirmed at the hearing that it considered the proposal was contrary to both Policy 23 and Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031, adopted November 2021 (LP). I have proceeded on this basis.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be an appropriate form of development with particular regard to the design, layout and effect on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect on highway safety with particular regard to access for service vehicles and any conflict between pedestrians and vehicles; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of external space and outlook; and • whether there are any material considerations which mean that the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The appeal site is located in a residential area characterised by twentieth century housing. In the main, housing consists of short terraces of two storey properties set back from the road. The terraces have stepped roofs which respond to the topography, with some terraces stepping down to a single storey property at the end.

The roughly rectangular appeal site occupies a back land location at the rear of existing residential development. Surrounded by existing residential development on 3 sides and a woodland to the rear, the appeal site is somewhat constrained. As a result, the proposed development would be tight up against the eastern and western boundaries of the site and the resulting plot sizes are significantly smaller than the surrounding development. In this respect, the proposal would appear less spacious than the surrounding development.

However, the linear form of the proposed housing reflects the layout of existing housing in the surrounding area. It also comprises of a short terrace of 6 two-storey properties, stepping down to a single storey element at the western end of the terrace which reflects the pattern, scale, massing and rhythm of the surrounding development. The use of pitch roofs with gables facing into the site would reduce the overall bulk of the terrace when viewed from the access and within the site. Although the appeal site occupies slightly higher ground than the surrounding properties, separation distances are sufficient to prevent the proposal from appearing overbearing or intrusive from existing development.

Whilst the proposal would not take the form of a mews development as advocated on infill plots in the [name] dated August 2024, I heard at the hearing that this has not been subject to public consultation nor formally adopted. I therefore ascribe limited weight to the document.

For reasons that I come on, I do not find that the gardens are small or that the layout of the site is compromised to an unacceptable extent. The proposal would not result in the overdevelopment of the site nor a cramped form of development. I therefore find no conflict with Policies D1, D3 and D4 of The London Plan dated March 2021 (TLP) and Policies 10 and 26 of the LP which provide support for back land development and seek to optimise the capacity of a site through a design-led approach.

Currently, an ‘L-shaped’ office building and parking occupies the eastern part of the appeal site whilst the western part of the site comprises a secure storage yard. There are narrow but segregated pedestrian footways on either side of the existing access from [address] between no’s 55 and 57. The access road bends sharply to the right in front of the area used for external storage.

Whilst the proposal would include the provision of a shared surface access, the proposal would not alter the overall width of the access, other than at the proposed location of the refuse and recycling store. The submitted tracking drawings indicate that sufficient width would remain to enable a 7.5 tonne box van to access the site. In this respect, I find that access for service vehicles would not be materially affected.

The submitted tracking drawings also indicate that, with the provision of an area for turning to the front of unit H1, there would be sufficient space to enable vehicles up to and including a 7.5 tonne box van to enter and leave the site in forward gear and for existing residents to access their garages. A planning condition could ensure that the turning area to the front of unit H1 is kept free for this purpose.

I heard at the hearing that in situations at present where two vehicles meet on the access, vehicles either reverse back into the site to allowing incoming vehicles to proceed or they wait on [address] for vehicles to exit the site. It was agreed between the main parties that there would be a reduction in the expected daily two-way vehicle movements along the access driveway, and therefore I find that the appeal proposal would not give rise to additional conflicting traffic movements.

Notwithstanding this, I accept that the residential nature of the site means that a greater number of pedestrians would be circulating on site and the location of the refuse and recycling store along the access driveway would lead to a greater potential for vehicles and pedestrians to be using the access at the same time.

However, the access from [address] is straight providing good visibility along its length. There would be sufficient width to enable cars and pedestrians to pass safely, and wider vehicles would only need to track over one of the pedestrian footways. The restricted width of the access and the sharp turn to the front of unit H1 would mean that vehicles would be travelling slowly. In addition, Manual for Streets acknowledges that in shared surface streets motorists tend to drive more cautiously and negotiate the right of way with pedestrians on a more conciliatory level1. There would be sufficient demarcation to the front of the properties in terms of low walls and landscaping, to ensure that conflict between pedestrians and vehicles would not arise to a harmful extent.

Bringing all this together, I conclude that access for service vehicles would not be impeded and the proposal would not give rise to conflict between pedestrians and vehicles to a harmful extent. For these reasons, I find no conflict with Policies 23 and 26 of the LP which support development which ensures safe and efficient use of the highway to meet the needs of all users.

In quantitative terms, the rear gardens would each provide between 31 and [address] metres of private outdoor space. This provision would be notably in excess of that required by Policy D6 of TLP for a 5-person dwelling. This would provide sufficient space for families to sit and relax and hang washing out.

Although a view of trees may be an attractive proposition, in this instance the close proximity and significant height of the trees, combined with the limited depth of the garden, dominant boundary fencing and northerly orientation of the rear gardens, would mean that the space would feel enclosed and shaded for much of the day. In qualitative terms, the garden would fail to function as an attractive outdoor space 1 Paragraph 7.2.9 of Manual for Streets and the outlook from the rear-facing windows of the dwellings would be unduly oppressive.

At the hearing, the Council acknowledged that the fence along the boundary with the woodland to the rear need not be a solid construction, as although there was public access to the woodland, it was used infrequently. A more open boundary fence would go some way to reducing the sense of enclosure in the rear gardens. Furthermore, the development would benefit from a communal play area with seating located to the south of the properties, offering an alternative area for residents to relax and where children could play.

However, neither of these would fully mitigate the poor quality of the rear gardens nor the outlook from the dwelling. Therefore, I find that there would be some conflict, albeit minor, with Policy 7 of the LP which seeks a high-quality living environment that does not result in an unacceptable outlook.

There is no dispute that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The Council’s published figure sits at 3 years. The appellant’s stance is that the actual position is only 0.98 years. Even if I take the Council’s figures, this is a significant undersupply at a time when the Government are seeking to boost the supply of homes. The delivery of 6 houses would make a modest but nonetheless useful contribution towards housing supply at a time when the Council are failing to deliver sufficient housing, and I afford this moderate weight.

The appeal scheme would bring forward development on a small site, as set out in Policy H2 of TLP and would contribute towards the need for additional family housing set out in Policy H10 of TLP.

There would also be social and economic benefits arising from the construction and occupation of the dwellings. Environmental benefits would also arise from the sustainable construction methods proposed and the biodiversity net gains. [name] give these benefits modest weight.

There is no evidence that existing residents find the current use of the site to be unneighbourly. I therefore give the benefit of removing the existing use very limited weight. However, Paragraph 125 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that I give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes.

The separation distances between the existing and proposed dwellings, even allowing for the difference in ground levels, are such that overlooking and loss of privacy would not occur to a harmful extent.

The appellant confirmed at the hearing that the proposed play area would be for the use of future residents of the appeal site only. This could be secured by a condition requiring an operational management plan. On that basis, the proposal would not result in excessive noise and disturbance to existing residents.

The level of parking proposed and the arrangements for refuse and recycling would accord with the requirements in the development plan.

A construction method statement secured by a condition would be necessary in the interest of highway safety and would reduce the impact of construction on nearby residents. The grant of planning permission does not override other legal rights that may exist on the land.

There is no substantive evidence before me that existing traffic conditions on [address] are inherently dangerous nor that the proposed development would have any material impact on highway safety on [address].

The appeal site lies beyond the boundary of the Shoulder of Mutton Wood Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC). The proposal would result in the loss of 3 trees which have been assessed as category U trees. With regards to the remaining trees, there would be no development within the root protection zones and conditions could secure their protection during construction. This would safeguard the health of the trees, and the character and appearance of the area. The Council’s ecologist is satisfied that there would be no impact on the SINC and I see no reason to depart from this view.

A condition to secure an external lighting scheme would prevent any harmful impact of lighting on wildlife in the SINC and the occupiers of existing properties.

As all 6 of the proposed properties would look out onto the parking and playground, there would be natural surveillance, acting as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour. A condition could secure compliance with Secure by Design in the interests of the living conditions of existing and future residents.

There is no indication from statutory consultees that the appeal proposal would lead to excessive pressure on local services and there is no substantive evidence from the [name] that the proposal would lead to unacceptable fire safety issues.

Interested parties have stated that the works would devalue nearby properties. However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. As such, the protection of purely private interests is not a consideration I have given any weight to2.

Applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise3. The Framework is an important material consideration. As set out above, the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. Therefore, Paragraph 11d) ii. of the Framework is engaged.

The proposal would not provide a high quality living environment in terms of the outdoor rear garden and the outlook from the rear of the property. The harm that would arise would be minor but this nonetheless counts against the proposal.

On the other hand, the provision of 6 new dwellings on a brownfield site in an urban location attracts substantial weight, even if the housing shortfall is as small as the Council claim. There are other benefits which would arise which attract modest 2 Paragraph: 008 [name]: 21b-008-20140306 of the Planning Practice Guidance 3 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 weight. It therefore follows that the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Accordingly, the Framework indicates that the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

I have had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance, the conditions provided in the SoCG and the discussion regarding conditions at the hearing. I have imposed them where they meet the tests set out in Paragraph 57 of the Framework, amending where necessary for the sake of simplicity, clarity and precision, including removing unnecessary tail pieces, without altering the substance of the conditions.

In addition to the conditions I have already referred to above and the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

Pre-commencement conditions (3), (4) and (5) requiring the submission of and compliance with a construction method statement and land contamination remediation scheme are necessary to ensure that any harm which may arise is mitigated during the construction phase. Conditions 4, 5 and 6 in respect of land contamination are necessary to prevent harm to existing and proposed occupiers. The appellant has provided their agreement to conditions 3,4 and 5 being imposed.

Conditions securing the submission of all materials (7), compliance with the landscape statement (11) and to ensure the refuse and recycling store is provided (20) are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the development and the wider area.

Conditions 13 and 22 are necessary in the interests of highway safety. Condition 24 to prevent the installation of further window openings is necessary to protect the living conditions of existing residents.

A condition (9) is necessary to conserve and enhance protected and Priority species and condition 10 is necessary to secure the stated biodiversity net gains.

Conditions 14,15,17 and 19 are necessary to ensure compliance with development plan policy and conditions 12 and 25 are necessary to protect the living conditions of existing and future residents. Condition 18 is necessary to reduce the risk of flooding.

The proposed development would not adhere to the development plan but material considerations, namely the Framework, indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should succeed.

The development to which this permission relates shall begin not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: • 5030/PL/01 – Site Location Plan • 5030/PL/04A – Proposed Site Plan • 5030/PL/05 – [name] & Roof Plan • 5030/PL/06 – [name] with Context • 5030/PL/07 – [name] • 5030/PL/08 – [name] • 5030/PL/09 – Proposed Section & [name] • 5030/PL/10 – [name]

No works (including demolition) shall take place until a construction method statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CMS shall include details of: i) siting and design of temporary buildings; ii) parking of vehicles of site personnel and visitors; iii) storage of plant and materials; iv) dust management controls; v) predictions of, measures for minimising, and a scheme for monitoring noise and, if appropriate, vibration arising from construction activities; vi) scheme for security fencing/hoardings, depicting a readily visible 24-hour contact number for queries or emergencies; vii) details of disposal of waste arising from the construction programme, including final disposal points. The burning of waste on the site at any time is specifically precluded. viii) wheel washing ix) working hours The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CMS.

No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site and shall include an updated Conceptual Site Model identifying all the potential pollutant linkages and an assessment of the risk to identified receptors.

No development shall commence where (following the risk assessment) land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed remediation scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including a timetable and the verification plan. The remediation scheme shall be sufficiently detailed and thorough to ensure that upon completion the site will not qualify as contaminated land under [name] of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to its intended use.

The approved remediation scheme in condition 5 above shall be carried out and upon completion, a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development, or relevant phase of development, is occupied.

No works above damp proof course shall be carried out until details of all external finishing materials to be used in the construction of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved materials.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the tree protection and mitigation measures set out in the [name] by [name] & Consultancy dated 31 January 2025. The agreed measures shall be implemented before development commences and kept in place for the duration of the construction period and until the approved development is completed.

All works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Ecological Assessment Report by [name] dated January 2025. The mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures contained in Section [address] prior to occupation of the dwellings and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] & Spreadsheet by [name] dated February 2026, and shall thereafter be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

The hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] by [name], dated January 2025 (Ref: PA692-TML-ZZ-ZZ-RP-L-0001A). All planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

All proposed walls, fences and boundary treatment shall be provided prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Once provided, the boundary treatment shall then be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings, a 2.1 by 2.1 metre pedestrian visibility splay shall be provided on either side of the proposed access, set back to the boundary of the public footway, as shown on drawing no: 24-338/001 included in the [name] by Odyssey dated January 2025. There shall be no obstruction or object higher than 0.6 metres within the visibility splay. The visibility splay shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

All dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to comply with Part M4(2) of the Building Regulations - Accessible and [name].

Any boilers installed in the dwellings hereby approved shall be [name] boilers with maximum [name] less than 40 mg/kWh. If the heating strategy is to be provided by an Air Source Heat Pump, they shall be designed to comply with the provisions of the [name]: MCS 020 "MCS Planning Standards for Permitted Development Installations of [name] and Air Source Heat Pumps on [name]".

The proposed development shall achieve a Certificate of Compliance in respect of the Secured by Design scheme, or alternatively achieve security standards (based on Secured by Design principles), details of which shall be provided to the local planning authority and approved in writing prior to the first occupation of the dwellings. All approved security measures shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

All dwellings hereby approved shall be designed to achieve mains water consumption of 105 litres or less per head per day (excluding allowance of up to five litres for external water consumption).

All hard surfaces hereby approved (including any sub-base) shall be made of porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the application site.

All residential parking spaces shall include provision of infrastructure for electric or [name] vehicles. Such provision shall be made prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted and retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings, the communal refuse and recycling store shall be provided in accordance with the drawings and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings, an operational management plan (OMP), relating to the management of on-site shared play space, landscaping, lighting, and the storage and collection of refuse and recycling, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Authority. The measures in the approved OMP shall be implemented on occupation of the dwellings and carried out for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings, the vehicle passing area to the south of house H1 shown on the approved drawings, shall be formed and thereafter maintained and kept clear of parked vehicles for the lifetime of the development.

No external lighting shall be installed, other than in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window (except non-opening with obscure glazing up to 1.7m above the finished floor level) shall be formed in the west elevation of dwelling H1, or the east elevation or east roof slope of dwelling H6.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], AA, B, C, and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be undertaken. [name]: [name] [name], [name] [name], Centro Planning Consultancy [name], [name] [name] Planner, Odyssey [name], Odyssey FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: [name] Warren Policy Officer [name] PARTIES: [name] [name] [name]