Appeal 6005239

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a 4 bedroom detached bungalow with associated landscaping, cycle storage, refuse storage and off-street car parking following demolition of an existing double garage at [site address] , Upminster, Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0723.25, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

With their appeal submission the appellant has provided the finding of the Council relating to a complaint procedure. Amongst other matters this states that the council would not be defending refusal reason 1 given in the decision notice for the application that is the subject of this appeal, which relates to the effect of the proposed development on living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers at [address] (No.37). However, the Council’s appeal statement maintains and restates their reasons for refusal in this regard. I have considered reason 1 for the refusal as a main issue in this appeal accordingly.

The appellant has submitted revised plans P2-R1, P3-R1 with the appeal. These show a change of internal layout and the addition of a side entrance to the garden. This is intended to overcome concerns expressed by the Council with regard to only having direct access from the proposed dwelling to its garden space through a bedroom. Given that the Council and other interested parties have had opportunity to comment on the revised plan, I have accepted these plans in line with the Wheatcroft principles1 . 1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, • The character and appearance of the local area; and • The living conditions of future occupiers.

The appeal site is within the rear garden of a generously proportioned 2 storey detached house at [site address] (No.10) located at the corner of [address] with [address]. This is located in an area of detached 2 storey houses of similar scale and on similarly sized plots. However, these demonstrate a wide variety of designs that lends to the area a vibrancy, but limits the cohesion of the local streetscape. Whilst set back from the street with good sized driveways and off street parking, including at No.10, these houses are set close to houses on either side, with limited space between neighbouring properties. The local area has a good number of mature trees, which with the generous garden spaces of the houses, lends the area a verdant character.

To the rear of No.10 is an existing detached garage that fronts onto [address], with parking area for 2 cars in front. The proposal would replace this with a larger 4 bedroom detached bungalow type dwelling with off street parking for 2 cars and a rear garden. This would require the subdivision and reduction in size of the existing rear garden of No.10. A Certificate of Lawful Development (CLD) was issued recently for an outbuilding of identical design and scale to that of the proposed dwelling and that would sit in exactly the same location within the garden of the appeal property as the proposed dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would be positioned to align its front elevation with the front elevation of No.37 and would project rearwards to align with the original rear wall of No.37. The proposed dwelling would be set significantly further away from the flank of No.37 than the existing garage. There are windows in the flank wall of No.37 at ground floor level, including to what appears to be a dining room and there are also obscured glazed windows within an extension to its rear. The setting away from the boundary and the rearward extent of the proposed dwelling would have the same effect on outlook to No.37 as the proposed outbuilding for which a CLD has been issued.

Given the distance of the proposed dwelling from the ground floor flank windows of No.37 and the height of the roof ridge, which matches that of the existing garage, I do not find that the proposal would result in a degree of enclosure or overshadowing that would affect the outlook from No.37 to the extent that it would cause significant harm to the living conditions of its occupiers.

The proposal would result in a substantial reduction in the garden of the appeal property through the creation of a new plot for the proposed dwelling. The proposal would have a single storey flank wall that would be closer to the rear of the appeal property than that of No.37. However, the existing garden of the appeal property is generously proportioned and its proposed subdivision and reduction in length would still retain a good sized garden for the appeal dwelling. Whilst the reduction in length of the rear garden of the appeal dwelling would change the outlook from the rear of the appeal property, given the distances involved and the single storey scale of the proposed dwelling, it would not result in a degree of enclosure that would be overbearing or experienced as oppressive. As such, the effect on outlook would not be so significant that it would result in the appeal dwelling being intrusive, overbearing and an unneighbourly development and would not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the No.10.

The proposed detached dwelling would be a single storey bungalow that would sit within a street and area of 2 storey detached houses. However, the vibrancy of the streetscape of the area resulting from houses of buildings of differing designs and architectural expressions would not be significantly interrupted by the addition of a single storey property. Especially when considering the varied roof line and forms with the street and area. As well as the varying street level of [address] as it rises upwards away from its junction with [address] and the concomitant effect this has on the roofscape within the street. I also note that the outbuilding for which a CLD has been issued would have a very similar appearance within the streetscene.

Similar to the CLD outbuilding proposal, the proposed dwelling would align with the front elevation of No.37, respecting the building line on this side of the street, which given the variety of designs and architectural expressions, steps in and out at various points within the frontage. The width of the proposed single storey bungalow, similar to the CLD outbuilding proposal would reflect the width of existing houses on the street and, given its setback from the street, would not result in a visually cramped appearance.

The main difference between the CLD outbuilding proposal and the proposed dwelling is the subdivision of the garden of No.10 to create a new plot for the proposed dwelling. However, the frontage of the plot created by the proposed subdivision would create a plot width that would reflect plots of the houses on the street and the gaps between properties. The proposed reduced garden length at No.10 would make it shorter than those of other houses in the street, but this would not be particularly apparent in street views, given their enclosed nature of these gardens at the rear houses. Consequently, the proposal would result in a street frontage and garden environment very compatible with the existing streetscene.

The Council officer’s report in the reasoning for recommending refusal relies on wording in Policy 10 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) as it relates to the subdivision of garden plots and garden development. However, the part of the policy quoted in the report is at paragraph vi., which only relates to proposals within the [address] and Emerson Park Character Areas. The appeal site does not fall within the boundary of either of these areas, and I have given this part of the policy limited weight in my considerations accordingly.

For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would result in no significant harm to the streetscene and would be compatible with the character and appearance of this verdant area.

The rear garden/amenity space to the proposed dwelling would have a width of 12.45 metres and a depth of 6.45 metres. From the 3 bedrooms at the rear of the proposed dwelling, two would have windows looking onto this space, with the central bedroom having glazed doors opening onto it. Whilst the area and depth of the garden would be substantially smaller than other large gardens in the immediate area, it would be of a size that is significantly larger than applicable space standards2 for new dwellings in London, which recommends a minimum of one [address] Metres of step-free private outside space for homes with one or two bedspaces, and an extra [address] Metre for every additional bedspace.

Given the depth and size of the proposed garden/amenity space, the rear fence would not be so dominating to outlook that it would result in a sense of enclosure that would be detrimental to the living conditions of its occupiers. The proposed rear garden space would provide a rear garden space of approximately 80.[address] Metres and constitutes an area that has the potential to provide significant amenity for future occupiers.

The revised plans submitted by the appellant, as detailed above, make relatively small changes to the layout and design of the proposal by adding a side entrance to the proposed dwelling, requiring a limited reduction in area of a bedroom. This would still meet the national space standards for bedrooms in new dwellings. The proposed side entrance would also provide a second accessway to the rear garden via the side space to the proposed dwelling, without having to use the doors in the central rear bedroom of the proposal. I am satisfied that this provides suitable access to the garden for all potential future occupiers without compromising their living conditions.

Interested third parties have raised a variety of other concerns with regard to the effect of the proposal. Concerns have been raised with regard to the measurements on the submitted plans, having carried out a site visit I am content that the measurements reflect the existing and proposed dimensions.

Given the distances involved and the proposed boundary treatments, the proposal would not result in any significant loss of privacy through overlooking. Rather it would reflect a degree of overlooking similar to that from the rear windows and gardens of neighbouring properties and would be of a level to be expected in a developed residential area of this type. Similarly, given the distances involved and the limited height of the single storey proposed dwelling, it would not result in any significant loss of daylight or sunlight to other properties in the local area that I have not already addressed above, or to outlook from these properties. Concerns have been raised with regard to noise nuisance from the appeal dwelling when in occupation. As the proposal is a detached dwelling separated from other dwellings, I see no inherent reason why it would result in noise nuisance compared to other dwellings and gardens in the immediate vicinity when in normal domestic use.

Whilst the proposal would result in the loss of the garage and two off street parking areas for No.10, there is significant parking area available to the front of the house 2 London Plan Guidance - [name] (June 2023) to compensate for this loss. The two parking spaces proposed meet the requirements for a dwelling of the size proposed.

From my site visit, it was apparent that there was a significant amount of on street parking available within the area if required. Consequently, the proposal would not result in any undue pressure on on-street parking in the local area. Given the small addition to local traffic that would result from the proposal and the quite nature of the surrounding streets, I do not find that the proposal would result in any significant increase in traffic to the extent that it would result in congestion or be harmful to the safety of the public.

Concerns have been raised with regard to fire safety. The proposal, as revised by the addition of a secondary entrance would provide for additional and suitable exit from the proposed dwelling. Further fire safety standards will be applied through the building regulations and is not a matter for me to consider as part of this appeal. Similarly surface water run-off and drainage form part of this separate regulatory process, however, a condition requiring the design and details of hard landscaping to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. With regard to concerns raised regarding noise and disturbance during construction and loss of greenery and trees, these are also addressed in the conditions paragraphs below.

Although concerns have been expressed about an approval of planning permission for the proposal setting a wider precedent, planning proposals are considered on their own individual merits, which is a main tenet of the planning system, and I have done so in this case.

For the reasons given above, I find that the appeal proposal would not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers or future occupiers of the proposed dwelling and would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such it would accord with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). Collectively these seek development that is of high quality design, respects and compliments the distinctive qualities, identity and character of the local area and ensures and protect the amenity and quality of life neighbouring residents and future occupiers, including from unacceptable outlook and loss of daylight and sunlight and provide for acceptable amenity space and provides comfortable and functional layouts for future occupiers.

I have had regard to the suggested conditions from the council, and the comments on these from the appellant should I be minded to allow the appeal, however, I find that there are no exceptional reasons to attach the suggested conditions limiting permitted development rights.

Along with the standard condition relating to the timing of implementation, I have attached a condition to ensure design quality that requires compliance with approved plans and the submission and approval of details of materials to be used in the external surfaces of the proposed dwelling. In the interests of good design and biodiversity I have attached a condition requiring the submission and approval of landscaping and tree proposals. In the interests of good design and the protection of privacy of neighbouring and potential future occupiers I have attached a condition requiring submission and approval of details of boundary treatments.

To ensure the protection of neighbouring residents from noise nuisance and disturbance during construction, I have attached a condition limiting times for some construction activities and amplified music. In the interests of environmental quality and sustainable waste management, I have attached a condition requiring the submission and approval of details of waste and recycling facilities. In the interests of the effective use of the highway, in have attached a condition requiring specific timing of off-street parking provision and its retention.

In the interest of air quality, I have attached a condition relating to the NOx emissions form any gas boiler to be installed, so that it complies with standards associated with London, a high Nox area. In the interests of efficient use of water resources, I have attached a condition requiring compliance with a building regulation standard promoted by the Council for new residential development. As the proposed detached dwelling is a single storey, it represents a type that has the potential to be adapted for use by future occupiers with access and adaptation requirements, I have attached a condition requiring compliance with a suitable part of the Building Regulations accordingly.

The appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TQRQM251491839905260, P2-R1, P3-R1, P1 with the exception of the internal layout of the dwelling shown on this plan and P4.

No above ground works shall take place in relation to any of the development hereby approved until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No above ground works shall take place in relation to any of the development hereby permitted until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and shrubs on the site, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for the protection in the course of development. 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.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the area set aside for car parking shall be completed in accordance with approved plans and materials and shall be retained permanently thereafter for the accommodation of vehicles visiting the site and shall not be used for any other purpose.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, details of all proposed walls, fences and boundary treatment shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The boundary development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained permanently thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until refuse and recycling facilities are provided in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The refuse and recycling facilities shall be permanently retained thereafter.

All building operations in connection with the construction of external walls, roof, and foundations; site excavation or other external site works; works involving the use of plant or machinery; the erection of scaffolding; the delivery of materials; the removal of materials and spoil from the site, and the playing of amplified music shall only take place between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and between 8.00am and 1.00pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and [name]/Public Holidays.

The development hereby permitted shall comply with Regulation 36 (2)(b) and Part G2 of the Building Regulations - [name].

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

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the installation of [name] boilers with maximum [name] less than 40 mg/kWh. Where any installations do not meet this emissions standard, it should not be operated without the fitting of suitable NOx abatement equipment or technology as determined by a specialist to ensure comparable emissions. The installation of the boilers shall be carried out in strict accordance with the agreed details and shall thereafter be permanently retained. Following installation emissions certificates are to be provided to the Local Planning Authority to verify boiler emissions. End of Schedule