Appeal 6005737

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of potential future occupiers.

The appeal property is a shop storage unit located to the rear of a shop unit at 127 [site address] . It is not accessed through the shop but has a separate entrance on [address]. Whilst in use as shop storage, the appeal site has the appearance of a semi-detached bungalow type property, with a small, fenced area between the front wall of the property and [address]. To the side is an open area that appears to be used for vehicle access.

The appeal property was originally constructed as a single dwelling without planning permission and subsequently approved as shop storage. Two previous applications for its use as a dwelling were refused, with subsequent planning appeals dismissed in both cases. The appellant has sought to overcome the reasons for these dismissals, and the appeal proposal includes the use of the space to the side of the appeal property as an amenity space without any provision for off street parking. This amenity space would be accessed from within the main living area of the proposed dwelling by new glazed doors to replace an existing small window in the flank wall.

The submitted plan shows a single bedroom with a single bed. This bedroom is shown as having a floor area of 11.[address] Metres. This is significantly larger than the minimum 7.[address] for a single person bedroom set out in the [name] – [name] (20215) (the space standards) and is also slightly larger than the 11.[address] Metres minimum given for a 2-person bedroom.

Although the appellant has shown a single bed in the bedroom, this room would be large enough to meet the standards for a 2-person bedroom. As this is the case, the proposal is required by the space standards to at least meet the minimum internal floor area for a 1 bedroom 2-person dwelling. These require a minimum overall floorspace of [address] Metres, rather than the minimum [address] Metres required for a 1 bedroom 1 person dwelling.

However, the proposed dwelling as a whole would have internal floorspace of approximately 44.[address] Metres and would be significantly smaller than the required space standards for a 1 bedroom 2-person dwelling. As such, I find that the proposal fails to meet the required space standards for such a dwelling and would result in a cramped interior for 2 occupiers, with a concomitant substantial detrimental effect on their living conditions.

The proposed change of the existing side area to be a single amenity space without any off-street parking would create a relatively small ground floor garden/amenity space. However, this would still be significantly larger than the minimum space required by space standards for such an amenity. This garden/amenity space would be surrounded by a proposed 1.8-metre-tall close boarded garden fence. Whilst this would provide for a significant degree of enclosure, it also provides for good levels of privacy from overlooking from both the street and surrounding properties and is a standard approach to enclosing garden space.

The addition of the glazed doors creates a very usable access and visual connection between the amenity space and the main living area of the proposal. As such the proposed garden/amenity space creates a useful additional exterior space that extends the living area for occupiers and is not so small or enclosed that it would not be a used or provide for an attractive exterior space. Therefore, the proposed amenity space would provide an acceptable level of amenity for potential future occupiers.

The fencing enclosing the area to the front of the proposed dwelling is proposed at 1.2 metres in height. From the bedroom of the proposal this allows for views out onto and down [address] whilst standing. Whilst quite close to the front wall of the property, this height of fence would not be so great that it would result in a degree of enclosure to the bedroom that would be experienced as oppressive.

The proposed 1.2-metre-high fence to the front of the property would also sit close to a window of the proposed dwelling’s main living space, this would also have views out when standing but provide for some enclosing privacy from views inside from the street. The proposed main living space would be dual aspect, and this degree of enclosure to this secondary window would be experienced in combination with the proposed open aspect of the glazed doors to the rear amenity space. As such the proposed fencing would not result in a degree of enclosure that would be experienced within this room as oppressive and would not result in a detrimental effect of the living conditions of potential future occupiers.

Concerns have been raised, including in the earlier appeals with regard to the effect of noise nuisance from the adjoining and neighbouring retail and commercial premises. However, I am content that this risk could be effectively managed by the installation of sound proofing measures commensurate with that risk. A suitably condition could therefore be attached to a planning approval requiring a [name] to be submitted to the Council and approved, with any recommended sound attenuation being installed prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling.

For the reasons given above, I find that the single bedroom of the proposal would be of a size for use by 2 persons, resulting in the proposal failing to meet the [address] Metres of total floorspace required for a 2-person single bedroom dwelling. This would create cramped living conditions for this number of potential future occupiers and would result in substantial harm to their living conditions. This would not accord with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) (the London Plan). Collectively these seek development that ensures the amenity and quality of life of future residential occupiers.

[name] have found that the outlook and amenity space of the proposed dwelling would not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of potential future occupiers, in this instance lack of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations.

Paragraph 11d, footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies most important for determining the application are out-of-date (including housing, where the LPA cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing), permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

When this is the case, and as this appeal relates to the provision of housing, the need for the proposal to be considered against Paragraph 11d is triggered. However, although the proposal must be determined within the context of Paragraph 11d, I consider the Local Plan policies to be a material consideration within this decision, which carry full weight in so far as they conform to the Framework.

According to the Government’s Housing Delivery Test: 2023, the Council has a significant projected housing shortfall on that required. Nothing before me indicates that this position has changed.

[name] have identified above, the appellant has not submitted material that would justify the significant harm to the living conditions of potential future occupiers, contrary to Policy 7 of the Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). In light of the Council’s housing supply position, Paragraph 12 of the Framework makes it clear that weight should be given to existing development policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Section 12, paragraph 135 of the Framework recognises that development should promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users. Even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and the Council’s supply position, the conflict between the proposal and Policy 7 of the Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan should be given significant weight in this appeal.

Set against the harm identified, there would also be social and economic benefits associated with the development. The appeal site is small in terms of its ability to provide housing, and the proposal would provide only a single additional dwelling compared to existing. Although a small contribution to the overall housing target within the Council area, small housing schemes do collectively make a significant contribution to the number of new residential units, and I have given this significant weight in my considerations. The proposal would also generate employment opportunities during its construction and through the employment of local services for its upkeep and maintenance when occupied. In connection with the single additional dwelling proposed, these benefits attract modest weight in favour of the proposed development.

Consequently, I conclude that the harm to the living conditions of potential future occupiers of the proposal that I have identified, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.