Appeal 6006383

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area; and, • whether the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outdoor amenity space.

The appeal site occupies a corner plot at the junction of [site address] and [address]. It accommodates an existing three storey building, with a single storey glazed conservatory which abuts almost the entirety of the [site address] frontage, with a curved façade wrapping around the corner along [address]. To the rear of the building is an area of hardstanding serving as a car park.

The existing building is highly prominent and distinctive within the street scene, visible in both short and longer views. Its dominance is emphasised by a lack of built form of a comparable height in close proximity, leading to a degree of physical separation which amounts to the building being interpreted as a standalone landmark building.

The surrounding area has a mixed-use character with both commercial and residential uses nearby. Close to the appeal site, commercial uses include petrol filling stations with associated single storey service buildings. These are relatively modern and functional in their appearance, with flat roofed forecourts.

[address], residential uses are prevalent, predominantly formed of two storey semi-detached and terraced properties with a variety of material finishes including brick, render and hanging tiles. Whilst there are other three storey buildings close to the appeal site, including flats along [address], these buildings do not hold the same scale or prominence as the appeal building.

The appeal proposal seeks to add an additional storey to the building in the form of a mansard style roof, finished in Welsh slate. Noting the lack of uniformity in the surrounding area, neither the design nor the proposed use of materials would be implicitly harmful to either the character of the existing building or the surrounding area.

Nevertheless, even with the set back from the edge of the building’s parapet, the additional bulk through the added storey would accentuate and exaggerate the dominance of the building in the street scene, to a degree that it would form a significant deviation from the established heights of buildings within the surrounding area. Rather than being well suited to the additional massing, the prominence of the appeal sites corner plot would emphasise the failure of the appeal proposal to integrate with its surroundings.

I understand that the original use of the building was a public house, and therefore it may have been intended for the building to form a local landmark, as perhaps demonstrated by the already prominent building height. However, the resultant building form would tip the balance towards the building being an incongruous and jarring feature in the street scene, to the detriment of the character of the surrounding area.

Based on the above, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks for development to respect the local character of the area, ensuring that it is well integrated and has regard to and respect for the surrounding area, including in terms of form and massing.

It would also be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which in part relates to the need for development proposals to enhance local context by delivering buildings that positively respond to local distinctiveness including through their scale and proportions.

Paragraph 125e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines support towards opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential and commercial spaces for new homes, including upward extensions such as mansard roofs. However, the paragraph goes on to state that the development should be consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene. For the reasons set out above, I have found this not to be the case with the appeal proposal.

The Council’s reason for refusal also refers to Policy LP30 of the Local Plan but I note that this relates to household extensions, and I therefore find it to be of limited relevance to the appeal proposal before me.

Policy LP29 of the Local Plan outlines that new development should provide external private and, or communal amenity space. For flatted developments, the policy sets an expectation for a minimum of 5m2 of private amenity space for 1- 2person dwellings. This is in line with the standards within Policy D6 of the LP.

Neither of the proposed units would be afforded any outdoor amenity space. It is suggested by the appellant that there are public parks and areas of open space near the appeal site, which would serve the need of future occupiers, noting that the units are directed towards single occupancy rather than family homes.

However, the policy expectation is very clear that, even smaller flatted developments should be served by outdoor amenity space. There are no allowances within the adopted policies for the level of amenity space to be reduced based on the locality of green spaces or other facilities in the area. I have therefore given the location of nearby open spaces little weight in my decision.

[name] note the constraints associated with the development noting it represents an upward extension scheme, based on the evidence before me, I am not convinced that this would implicitly prevent the creation of some form of outdoor amenity space, such as a recessed balcony. There is little before me to demonstrate that this would implicitly negatively impact upon the design integrity of the overall appeal scheme.

In the absence of any provision for outdoor amenity space, future occupiers are likely to feel overly constrained within their indoor living environments. Even noting that internally, the units would meet space standards and have a dual aspect, a lack of outdoor amenity space would create a substandard level of accommodation for future occupiers, contrary to Policy LP29 of the Local Plan and Policy D6 of the LP.

The appeal site is within the Zone of Influence for the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Epping Forest is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Epping Forest SAC is protected as a European Site of Nature Conservation Importance. It is subject to statutory protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘the Regulations’) which outline a duty to consider whether a proposed development may have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of such protected sites.

Whilst a unilateral undertaking was submitted at application stage to address this matter, this was in draft form and in any case did not refer to the correct monetary amount. No updated undertaking has been provided through the appeal proceedings. [name] been otherwise minded to allow the appeal, it would have been necessary for me to invite further comments from the main parties on this matter. However, because I am dismissing for other reasons, this is not required.

A lack of objection in respect to various matters, including the principle of residential development, impacts on neighbouring properties or heritage related matters do not specifically weigh in favour of the proposal.

Paragraph 11d) of the Framework sets out that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date. For applications involving the provision of housing, this includes where the [name] indicates that the development of housing was substantially below the housing requirement over the previous three years. The Council accept that its housing delivery results indicate that paragraph 11d) of the Framework should be engaged.

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework requires me to consider whether the adverse impacts of permitting the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Frameworks policies as a whole.

Even small developments present the opportunity to make a meaningful, immediate difference to housing land supply. The proposal would lead to the efficient use of well-located urban land. Paragraph 125c) of the Framework states that planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. In this context, I attach substantial positive weight to the delivery of two additional residential units.

Set against these benefits, the proposal would deliver a form of development which would be overly conspicuous within the street scene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of both the host building and the surrounding area. In this context the proposal would be at odds with paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks to deliver well-designed places which are sympathetic to local character.

In addition, the proposed units would have no provision of outdoor amenity space. This would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework which outlines an expectation that developments should have a high standard of amenity for future users.

Considering these provisions, I find the harm arising from the proposal would be substantial and would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The circumstances as set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework exist and so the presumption in favour of granting planning permission does not apply.

Taking all of the above into account, the benefits of the proposal, including the associated housing delivery, are not sufficient to outweigh the harm identified. This brings the scheme into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.