Appeal 6006205

The appeal is dismissed.

Some development has been carried out. For the avoidance of doubt, this has not had a bearing on my decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and on highway safety with particular regard to car parking.

The Epping Forest SAC is designated for its important habitats and species. Due to the potential for recreational disturbance without any mitigation in place, in combination with other plans and projects, there would be a likely significant effect on the interest features of the site from the proposed development.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 require competent authorities before granting consent for a plan or project, to carry out an appropriate assessment (AA) in circumstances where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. I am therefore required to undertake an AA.

The Epping Forest Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) strategy recommends that the effects of future development can be mitigated through a site wide approach, managed increase in use of visitor hubs and visitor engagement activities. Along with the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to divert and displace visitors from Epping Forest to other areas. In this case the Council has sought to mitigate the effects by seeking a contribution towards SANG and SAMM. A planning obligation was provided with the application. However, both parties acknowledge this contained errors. As such there is no obligation that would effectively secure this mitigation.

The Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals - England makes it clear that an executed and certified copy of the planning obligation must be received at the time of making the appeal. The appellant has suggested a Grampian condition could secure such an obligation. However, the evidence before me does not satisfy me that leaving this important matter to be resolved post-decision would achieve the very high level of certainty required that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.

The scheme is for HMO bedrooms which is not directly connected with the nature conservation of the site but would provide for a specific housing requirement in an accessible location, in an area where there is a shortage in the supply of housing. Overall, and taking into account the scale of the development this results in important but modest benefits. However, this does not amount to imperative reasons of overriding public interest sufficient to override the harm to the site.

Consequently, there is no mechanism to secure mitigation for the Epping Forest SAC. As such, there would be a likely significant effect on the interest features of the site from the proposed development and it would have a harmful effect on the Epping Forest SAC. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policy LP39 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (RLP) which requires that generally, development should not be permitted which would adversely affect the integrity of the Epping Forest SAC.

The proposed development would retain two off street car parking spaces, however it would result in the loss of a garage. A parking stress survey has been provided which assesses on street parking on roads that are a [address] from the property. The Council are concerned about the inclusion of [address] and considers the spaces on [address] are overstated given the need to cross the A12 and whether this would be a practical driving route for people searching for a parking space.

The site has a PTAL level [address] to [name]. Although the proposed development is a sui generis use, the Council consider that the parking requirements would be similar to the standard for a three bed (or more) dwelling. This would require a maximum of one car parking space. Two parking spaces would be retained.

There is a signalised pedestrian crossing a very short walk from the property and as such, although this is a busy main road, it is safe and easy to cross very close to the site. Consequently, there would not be difficulty in accessing parking spaces on the other side of the A12 on foot.

[address] is a major road the spaces are separate from traffic and marked. Nor would a short drive of 1km discourage occupiers from accessing these nearby safe parking spaces if there were no spaces on the southern side of the A12. Furthermore, given the low parking stress recorded on [address] it is highly likely parking would be available here, and this would remain the case even if [address] and [address] were not considered.

As such, taking into account the low level of likely overspill parking and the availability of spaces within a reasonable driving route and a safe walk from the property, the proposed development would not result in unacceptable levels of parking stress or resultant unsafe on street parking.

Therefore, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on highway safety. Consequently, it would be in accordance with Policies LP6 and LP23 of the RLP. Together these require that sufficient parking should remain to serve local needs and that HMOs should include appropriate car parking provision. Policy T2 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) mainly relates to trips by walking and cycling and therefore the policies set out above are more relevant to this main issue. The lack of harm in this regard is a neutral matter.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and the latest [name] results indicate that the delivery of housing was substantially below the housing requirement over the previous three years. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (Framework) is engaged. It requires that planning permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, when assessed against the policies within the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies.

As previously set out, the scheme would provide the social and economic benefits of the provision of HMO bedrooms. This would be a small windfall site in a sustainable location and the appeal scheme would provide for a specific housing requirement and would be an effective use of land in this regard. Overall, these would be modest benefits of this scheme. On the other hand, the development would have a harmful effect on the Epping Forest SAC. This is an internationally important habitats site and as such the nature of this harm is very significant.

Evidence as to the extent of the housing land supply has not been provided, however even if there were a significant undersupply, the very significant adverse effects significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits set out above when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole and having particular regard to key policies. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.