1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 June 2023 by Tom Bristow BA MSc MRTPI AssocRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 July 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone E11 1JP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Grey Castle Limited against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application ref. 213235, dated 8 October 2021, was refused by notice dated 22 February 2022. • The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘erection of an additional storey to provide five new flats.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. Each proposal must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The development plan includes policies of the Council’s Core Strategy, Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (‘DPD’), and of the London Plan.1 I have had regard to various other material considerations including the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’), the Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) and the Council’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Documents (‘SPD’).2 A revised Borough plan is currently at a relatively advanced stage of examination. 3. The appellant has submitted additional plans and information beyond that accompanying the original scheme. An appeal should not be used to evolve a proposal. However, rationally, that documentation responds to the Council’s reasons for refusal (particularly where the Council contended information was insufficient). In several instances that documentation is advanced as if to answer the question as to whether certain matters are capable of resolution via condition, a reasonable consideration. There are no significant alterations to the overall nature of the scheme. The Council note that the foregoing documentation has not been subject to ‘any formal consultation process’.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Be that as it may, that statement in itself demonstrates that the appeal process has afforded opportunity for comment. There is therefore no reason to discount any of that documentation from my assessment. 1 Adopted respectively in March 2012, October 2013, and March 2021. 2 Adopted February 2010. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Be that as it may, that statement in itself demonstrates that the appeal process has afforded opportunity for comment. There is therefore no reason to discount any of that documentation from my assessment. 1 Adopted respectively in March 2012, October 2013, and March 2021. 2 Adopted February 2010. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 4. The appellant does not expressly argue that the provisions of NPPF paragraph 11. d) are engaged. There is reference to commonly acknowledged land supply constraints in London, and to equally well acknowledged pressures for housing delivery. However there is no contention that the Council are unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply of deliverable sites relative to needs with reference to NPPF paragraphs 68 and 74, nor that delivery has recently faltered with reference to Housing Delivery Test data. Nonetheless London Plan policy H1 sets a ten year housing target for Waltham Forest of 12,640, which significantly exceeds the minimum figure in Core Strategy policy CS2 of 10,320 homes over 15 years. Main issues 5.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Against the context above, the main issues are the effects of the proposal on (i) character and appearance, (ii) the living conditions of neighbours with particular regard to privacy, (iii) daylight and sunlight (collectively ‘natural light’), whether (iv) the proposal would afford appropriate living conditions for future occupants, with particular reference to internal space, waste and cycle provision, and whether (v) appropriate provision is, or could, be made for associated parking implications. Reasons 6. Essex Mansions is a three-storey purpose-built block of 30 one-bedroom flats. It is set along the south-western side of Essex Road South in a narrow plot of far greater length than depth. The block spans between Hainault Road to the south-east and to a commercial garage with a canted frontage to the north- west. The garage, ostensibly nos. 207 and 207a Forest Road, occupies the corner plot of Essex Road South and Forest Road. To the south-west are nos. 1 to 17 Integer Gardens, either ‘Span’ houses or similar. The footprint of Essex Mansions occupies the vast majority of its plot. Realistically there is only sufficient space around the property to allow for circulation, access and other functional purposes. 7.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Judging by its structural form, architecture and brickwork, the block appears to be early-to-mid twentieth century. Notwithstanding tiled art deco motifs at both stairway cores, in design Essex Mansions is of a typology relatively common to peripheral London. Albeit a product of its time, the block possesses no meaningful historic significance. With six substantial water tank housings, the block otherwise has a flat roof bounded by a low parapet and railings.3 The roof extends slightly towards Essex Road South to provide cover to the walkway serving second floor flats. At some point a projecting guard rail has been installed at the eaves there, likely to prevent unauthorised roof access. 8. Subject to various limitations and conditions, Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the ‘GPDO’) enables new dwellinghouses to be created on detached blocks of flats without the need for specific planning permission. The appellant argues ‘the sentiment behind’ Part 20 permitted development rights lends weight to the principle of the scheme before me. There is some force in that.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Nevertheless those permitted development rights do not apply to Essex Mansions on account of its construction before 1 July 3 I understand that the water tanks are either redundant, or soon to be redundant. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Nevertheless those permitted development rights do not apply to Essex Mansions on account of its construction before 1 July 3 I understand that the water tanks are either redundant, or soon to be redundant. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 1948. In any event to effect development permitted via Part 20, Class A an application to the local planning authority must be made for prior approval in respect of various matters. Those various matters include the external appearance of the building and also implications in respect of neighbouring amenity which are also germane here. Character and appearance 9. As a general characterisation, Victorian and early twentieth century terraced houses with London stock brick elevations predominate nearby. Some have accommodation arranged over two storeys, some over three storeys (whether by dint of original design or subsequent alteration). In reflecting that typology, Forest Drive West beyond Forest Road, Hainault Road heading north- eastwards, and Fairlop Road beyond St. Catherine’s Church, typify the historic suburban expansion of London.4 10. Architectural variety amongst older properties is generally limited to that which is consistent with eclectic nineteenth century architectural preferences, and the practical means by which development was delivered piecemeal during that era. There are also some more recent properties nearby.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Nos 2, 4, 6 and 8 Essex Road South appear squarely mid twentieth century. Nos 1 to 17 Integer Gardens likely date from the mid-1960s or later. As a rule, more recent properties tend to be broadly comparable in scale and form to older buildings. 11. The foregoing sets the baseline context in which Essex Mansion sits. Inherent in that summary is that the block already differs from prevailing character (in form, scale, plot shape and the relationship of the building’s footprint to the plot). There is, nevertheless, some variety in the scale of buildings nearby. Margaret’s Court, a short distance to the north-east is three storeys tall. Dennis Court, between nos. 146 and 152 Hainault Road, close to Margaret’s Court, is also of three storeys (an understated building with instead a gabled roof). 12. Whilst the footprint, plot and relationship of the relevant building to the highway varies in each instance, there are also several examples of four storey buildings nearby; Harley House,5 Egerton Court,6 and Hilboro Court.7 Each of the abovenamed developments reflects a response to changing development pressures over time.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision That is no different to circumstances now, which differ markedly from those which applied during the establishment and evolution of the prevailing characteristics of the area. As alluded to in paragraph 4 of this decision, and to some extent also via Part 20 rights, there is a legitimate case for some level of intensification to meet future housing needs. 13. Setting that broader context aside, by virtue of its substantial rooftop water tank housings, Essex Mansions is already taller than three storeys of accommodation might suggest. Whilst those housings might better be described as honest elements of the historic design, as opposed to ‘highly visible and unsightly’ as characterised by the appellant, nevertheless the proposed ridgeline would reach only slightly higher than them. Plans also show 4 Here aligned with the construction of the Epping Ongar railway and later Tottenham and Forest Gate railway. 5 Apparently formerly nos. 231 Forest Road and 155 Hainault Road. 6 Across Fairlop Road relative to the Church. 7 Beyond what appeared to have originated as a pair of inter-war properties by Egerton Court. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 an artificial hypothetical perspective. As experienced from ground level the additional height and bulk proposed would be far less readily perceptible. 14. Moreover there is limited harmony in the roofscape nearby, particularly around the roundabout junction of Essex Road South with Hainault Road. Nos. 181 and 183 Hainault Road are gabled. Nos 114 to 120 Hainault Road opposite the roundabout have parapet walls, that at nos. 118 and 120 having crenelated detailing. The Church has a substantial and varied roof form. From various vantage points near the roundabout the block is also seen in conjunction with the side elevations of Harley House and Egerton Court (visible despite the topography declining broadly south-westwards towards, and beyond, them). 15. The proposed roof form would be varied, comprising a series of ridges and valleys. That would, to some extent, better reflect the prevailing grain of individual properties than the lack of relief at other blocks nearby. In that context the area is not so harmonious, nor so sensitive to change, that the scheme would be discordant or unacceptable in respect of height or scale.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision In short there would be change rather than harm in those respects. 16. Core Strategy paragraph 5.12 explains how ‘homes should be spacious enough for daily activities with storage and appropriate levels of private amenity space’. Criterion B) i) of DPD policy DM7 sets out how all homes, included flatted development, should have access to an element of private space.8 The SPD sets out that blocks of apartments should have ‘private balconies where practical…’.9 Similarly, in summary, criterion 9 of London Plan policy D6 seeks to ensure minimum levels of private outdoor space provision. In that context, notwithstanding that there appears some leeway to consider the context- specific appropriate level of private outside space, it is understandable that the proposal includes 5 balconies or terraces. 17. However one balcony would face squarely towards Hainault Road and another towards Forest Road (the others being of lesser prominence given their location and partial occlusion by virtue of the form of the additional storey proposed). They would, in short, be uncharacteristic features relative to the prevailing traditional nature of the area.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision I was unable to identify any other comparable balconies, or balconies whatsoever, in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site during my site visit (including at the three or four storey properties referenced above). Whilst the overall scale and form of the proposed additional storey would be acceptable as reasoned above, the use of balconies in those locations would, by contrast, appear clearly incongruous. 18. I accept that the balconies proposed respond to the confines of the site. In theory balconies of comparable design might acceptably integrate in a more varied environment. However the use of those balconies here would inevitably draw the eye by virtue of their being out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area. Those proposed astride the block appear to have been advanced with the chief aim of providing some private outside space, rather than reflecting a design-led approach to the surrounding context. 8 Criterion B) v) also making provision where amenity space cannot be provided on-site. 9 Paragraph 5.9.6., notwithstanding that the Urban Design SPD later recommends that ‘the minimum area for usable communal space in flatted developments [should be] 50 sq metres…’.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 19. I therefore conclude that, in respect of the proposed balconies associated with proposed flats 31 and 35, that the proposal would fail to accord with the relevant provisions of policies CS2 and CS15 of the Core Strategy, of DPD policies DM4 and DM29 and criterion c) of NPPF paragraph 130. In summary, and amongst other things, those provisions seek to ensure that all development integrates appropriately with its surroundings.10 Living conditions of neighbouring occupants 20. Various development plan policies seek, again in summary, to ensure that development is appropriately designed with reference to its surrounding context in respect of living conditions.11 NPPF paragraph 130. f) similarly seeks to ensure that all development ensures a ‘high standard of amenity for existing and future users.’ Privacy may be visual or auditory. It is also, to greater or lesser degree, context specific and dependent on personal perception. As referenced in paragraph 5.9.2 of the SPD, notwithstanding earlier reference therein to numeric separation distances, ‘the objective of privacy can often be better secured through careful and imaginative detailed design…’. 21.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Outlook from the flats proposed across highways, the resultant distance from nearby properties, and the nature of the intervening area, would collectively mean that the proposal would not result in undue effects to neighbouring living conditions in those orientations. The additional storey proposed would have 17 windows facing in the direction of properties comprising Integer Gardens, 7 of which would be roughly in line with the rear elevation of the block (the others inset). There is already a degree of intervisibility between rear windows at Essex Mansions and the gardens at Integer Gardens, nevertheless that appears to create a greater potential for overlooking. 22. However, at nos. 1, 7 and 17 Integer Gardens closest to Essex Mansions, there is only a single first floor obscured window apiece facing the block (in the locations shown in the appellant’s Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, ‘DSA’).12 Moreover given the height at which the proposed flats would be set, views south-westwards through windows facing in that direction would naturally be over the roofscape of neighbouring properties.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Only with difficulty, and when stood right by windows, would it be possible to obtain views obliquely downwards towards Integer Gardens. Although the scheme may therefore result in some additional perception of being overlooked, the potential for loss of privacy by virtue of proposed windows would not be significant. 23. The balcony facing north-westwards intended to serve what is annotated on the supporting plans as Flat 31 would, by virtue of being next to nos. 207 and 207a and a driveway associated with no. 1 Integer Gardens next to the vehicular access to those properties, similarly have little meaningful effect in terms of potential for overlooking. Balconies intended to serve flats 32, 33 and 34 fall squarely next to Integer Gardens, albeit there is a nuanced inter-relationship 10 Having also had regard to the SPD. Whilst I note the Council also refer to their ‘Residential Extensions and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document (February 2010) that appears to instead relate squarely to ‘people wanting to extend or alter their home’.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision 11 Including relevant provisions of Core Strategy policies CS2, CS13, CS15, DPD policy DM32 (criterion xv of policy DM29 cross-referring to policy DM32) and London Plan policy D3, criterion 7. 12 Prepared by Herrington Consulting Limited, September 2021. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision 11 Including relevant provisions of Core Strategy policies CS2, CS13, CS15, DPD policy DM32 (criterion xv of policy DM29 cross-referring to policy DM32) and London Plan policy D3, criterion 7. 12 Prepared by Herrington Consulting Limited, September 2021. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 between those properties and their gardens on account of nos. 1 to 17 being arranged effectively in three rows perpendicular to Essex Mansions.13 24. The appellant’s position is effectively that the terraces would be ‘of limited capacity due to their size and include privacy balustrading around them to avoid any intrusive overlooking from them’. I doubt flats would be marketed in those terms. The appellant further states that the rear terraces ‘do not breach the existing or proposed rear building line’, and that ‘whilst there will be some oblique views to neighbouring gardens, these do not create a materially harmful increase in overlooking…’. For 4 reasons, I disagree. 25. Firstly, to some extent intertwined with my reasoning in respect of character and appearance, balconies are atypical here (or entirely absent). Levels of privacy may legitimately be gauged relative to a prevailing baseline. Elements of the built environment which go against the grain inherently attract attention. In my view the use of balconies here, compared to the absence of such at present, would be liable to significantly reduce a perception of privacy by virtue of their incongruity. 26.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Secondly, there appears to be no indication of ‘privacy balustrading’ in the associated plans. Proposed elevations appear to show instead guard rails, presumably sufficient to address the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations 2010 as amended but little else.14 It would, in theory, be open to me to impose a condition specifying screening.15 However doing so may have other as yet indeterminate implications, for example in respect of outlook from the proposed flats or in terms of character and appearance. 27. Thirdly, balconies entail greater potential for overlooking than windows. Crudely the potential for overlooking through a window is limited by the size of the aperture, frame and nature of any window opening. Views will therefore inevitably be constrained. Notwithstanding the foregoing in respect of screening, balconies or terraces are less constrained. Users, and after all it is the intention that balconies are used, are free to move around and thereby obtain less restricted views. It is innately part of human nature to look around, particularly to be drawn to motion elsewhere. 28. Fourthly, privacy is not only visual.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision In the same way as the aperture of windows moderates the potential for overlooking, in conjunction with the fabric of the wall in which they are set, they serve to attenuate noise to some extent. I accept that the area may fairly be characterised as an ‘urban townscape’ as the appellant puts it, and that there is a benchmark level of noise or sound here in that context. 29. However prevailing noise, for example generated by vehicles or by people within the public realm, is qualitatively different to noise generated in a more private residential context. As in respect of being drawn to motion visually, noise associated with conversations naturally draws attention. In my view the 13 The Council rationally drawing a distinction between the potential effects of the balcony related to no 34, and also 35, with that in mind. 14 Current Guidance being in Approved Document K, diagram 3.1. 15 Notwithstanding that PPG Reference ID: 21a-012-20140306 guides against conditions which would have the effect of modifying the development in a way that ‘makes it substantially different from that set out in the application’. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 balconies proposed, particularly in respect of flats numbered 32 and 33, has the clear potential to result in both a loss of visual and auditory privacy to occupants of Integer Gardens. Those effects are likely to be most acute in respect of the gardens of properties at Integer Gardens (there being no differential stipulation in that regard relative to internal space in relevant elements of the development plan or NPPF cited above). 30. I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in an undue reduction in privacy from which certain occupants of Integer Gardens current benefit (which is presently broadly consistent with the prevailing baseline here). By consequence the proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of development plan policies cited in footnote 12 above, along with criterion f) of NPPF paragraph 130. Natural light 31. The supporting DSA is consistent with then applicable industry-standard guidance produced by the Building Research Establishment (‘BRE’).16 The DSA identifies that the proposal would, inevitably, have some effect in respect of the availability of natural light (including at the gardens of nos.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision 1 and 7 Integer Gardens).17 However the DSA finds that no reduction would fall below threshold limits advocated within the BRE Guidance referenced above. 32. Rationally the findings of the DSA put methodological rigour to what might anyway be observed. The scheme is comparatively limited in scale and height, particularly considered relative to existing water towers. The upwards extension would be confined to the existing footprint of Essex Mansions, and separated from other development by Essex Road South to the north-east and Hainault Road to the south-east. Essex Mansions itself is to the north-east of Integer Gardens (as opposed to the south-west where there would be greater potential for overshadowing). Moreover given the urban nature of the area, existing buildings have far more significant implications for impeding natural light intermittently than the development proposal. All told, any implications would be very slight as opposed to unacceptable. 33. Certain windows at second floor nos. 21 to 30 Essex Mansions are shown in DSA modelling.18 However, as observed by the Council, those windows are within the rear elevation of Essex Mansions.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellant has subsequently commissioned a statement in respect of the Essex Road South facing windows of those flats (‘DSAS’).19 The DSAS points out that the addition proposed would extend no further forward than the ‘protruding roof’ present. If anything, based on additional modelling in the DSAS, it appears by virtue of altering that element of the block, north-east facing habitable rooms at nos. 21-30 Essex Mansions would benefit from slightly improved natural light availability. 34. Although I have considered the representations of nearby residents, many of which express concern in respect of natural light, for the foregoing reasons the proposal would be acceptable in respect of implications for natural light in 16 Entitled Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight- A Guide to Good Practice (second edition, 2011). 17 Table 6.2. 18 Drawing nos. 3201_07, 3201_08, 32_09 (annotated windows being ‘W1 to W10’). 19 Also produced by Herrington Consultants Limited, 4 April 2022. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan and NPPF referenced in paragraph 30 above. Living conditions of future occupants 35. Aligned with the supporting plans, the table under paragraph 4.57 of the appellant’s statement of case sets out that each flat would, by about 1sqm, exceed the minimum space standards for a 2 bed flat occupied by 3 persons. Each would be of 62 square metres (‘sqm’) gross internal area (‘GIA’).20 As the appellant accurately points out, in the notes to table 3.1 supporting London Plan policy D6, and the notes to the Nationally Described Space Standard published 27 March 2015 (‘NDSS’), ‘built-in storage areas are included within the overall GIAs…’. 36. Therefore although the Council note that a storage cupboard of only about 0.6sqm is shown in respect of each flat, there would be nothing to prevent the recommended 2sqm of built-in storage from being provided.21 A floor to ceiling height of 2.52m is shown on plan 21061 -LSI -EML -ZZ -DR - A -1370 rev. P01.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision That exceeds the minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75% of the GIA of a given unit as specified in London Plan policy D6, criterion 8 (2.3m instead being set out via the NDSS). The foregoing plan appears consistent with others showing the overall envelope of the proposal. 37. Criterion B of Core Strategy policy CS6 seeks to ensure that new development provides ‘adequate and well designed’ facilities for waste and recycling,22 with criterion B) of DPD policy DM32 making more specific provision (and also referencing the SPD). In turn SPD paragraph 5.9.9 sets out how careful consideration needs to be given to refuse collection, which should be ‘integral to the design of the development and not left as an ‘afterthought’ …’. The Council’s officer report references the Council’s Waste & Recycling Guidance for Developers (June 2019) stating that the ‘development would be required to provide…’ a total of 7,680 litres of external waste storage provision.23 38. Currently waste provision is accommodated in a limited area to the north-west of the block, next to nos. 207 and 207a. Unsurprisingly that is a tucked away area, accessible only on foot from the pavement by way of a short break in the brick boundary wall.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision At the time of my site visit that accommodated two 1100 or 1280 litre wheelie bins. Existing provision therefore ostensibly falls well short of the Waste Guidance recommendations of 6000 litres to serve 30 existing flats. Plan no. 21061-LSI-EML-XX-DR-A-1180, Rev. P01 shows, however, that there is sufficient capacity in a hardsurfaced area beyond the south-eastern elevation of the block fronting Hainault Road to accommodate 7 wheelie bins each of 1100 litres. 39. Numerically, as opposed to qualitatively, there would therefore be more than sufficient physical capacity within the appeal site to accommodate existing and future waste storage. The approach now proposed would necessitate forming 20 Pursuant to DPD policy DM7 and London Plan policy D6 which, as with the Nationally Described Space Standard published 27 March 2015, prescribe a gross internal area of 61 sqm in that respect. 21 London Plan table 3.1 and NDSS table 1. 22 Core Strategy policy CS13 being more broadly focussed on promoting health and wellbeing as opposed to referencing waste specifically. 23 Drawing from the metrics in paragraph 5.1.1 of the Waste Guidance, with an additional 480 litres for food/organic waste. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 an access in the brick boundary wall fronting Hainault Road, with plan no. 21061-LSI-EML-XX-DR-A-1180, Rev. P01 showing that and also potential bin housing. Albeit variable, in the location of the proposed access, the wall is approximately 15 brick courses tall. 40. Comparable height brick walls exist elsewhere in the area, principally associated with older properties. However boundary features fronting the pavement flanking Hainault Road are mixed. Many historic walls have evidently been removed to provide for driveways. The plot boundary of the Church is instead demarcated by modern metal fencing. The gardens of nos. 12 to 17 Integer Gardens facing towards Hainault Road are demarcated by substantial close-boarded fencing. There is also a gated footpath running between the plot of no 17 Integer Gardens and the wall around the appeal site. 41. In that context the creation of ‘pedestrian’ access to the area proposed for refuse provision would not be incongruous. Moreover given even the existing height of the boundary wall at Essex Mansions, refuse provision would be largely obscured from public view.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision As the area to the south-east of the block of flats is already hardsurfaced, there is also every likelihood that the wellbeing of the tree at the boundary could be safeguarded. There is currently also no vehicular access to waste provision. There is nothing to suggest that the area identified for proposed waste storage is presently used as communal space in association with Essex Mansions. In my view it appears, by contrast, little more than an incidental and untended space that would not readily lend itself to any particular purpose. 42. In broad terms Core Strategy policy CS7 seeks to encourage cycling, with criterion F) of DPD policy DM16 setting out how ‘secure and convenient cycle parking’ should be provided. Table 10.2 to London Plan policy T5 sets a minimum standard of 2 cycle spaces per dwelling larger than 1 bedroom 2 person. As again shown on plan 21061-LSI-EML-XX-DR-A-1180, Rev. P01 the corollary of the proposed alteration to waste provision would enable the area between the block and nos. 207 and 207a to be given over to secure cycle provision sufficient to accommodate 10 bicycles. 43. Numerically therefore policy compliant provision appears to be readily achievable.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision As with waste provision that could legitimately be secured via condition were the development acceptable as a whole. As acknowledged in the Council’s officer report,24 the proposal need only consume its own smoke rather than rectify existing provision which falls below present standards. Setting aside the Council’s objection to considering revised plans, and that refuse provision and cycle storage have evidently not been integral to the original scheme design, for the above reasons I conclude that the development proposed would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants in the foregoing terms (or more accurately could, subject to adherence to conditions). Parking 44. The Council’s decision notice states that ‘the scheme is not car free’, which is correct. There is no planning obligation before me in that respect. The decision 24 In contrast to the implication of paragraph 4.28 of the Council’s statement of case which reads ‘it is not clear whether the proposed cycle storage would be for the whole development or is proposed to service the proposed new flats.’ https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 notice also states that ‘policy requires the development to be car-free’. That appears incorrect. 45. Criterion I) of Core Strategy policy CS7, to which supporting paragraph 10.35 also relates, ‘promotes’ car free developments. Similarly criterion B of DPD policy DM16 ‘encourages’ car-free development. Recognising that explanatory text to a policy does not have the same force as the policy itself, DPD paragraph 17.5 sets out how proposals ‘in area of on-street parking stress should be ‘car capped’ (or car-free) to avoid exacerbating this problem’. ‘Promoting’ and ‘encouraging’, are not synonyms with ‘requiring’. 46. That said, criterion B of London Plan policy T6 sets out how ‘car-free development should be the starting point for all development proposals that are (or are planned to be) well-connected by public transport…’.25 The site, within a Controlled Parking Zone (‘CPZ’), has a PTAL rating of 5 indicating ‘a very good level of public transport accessibility’.26 Supporting paragraph 10.6.1 to policy T6 sets out the multifaceted benefits of reducing parking provision associated with new development.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision They include promoting alternative modes of transport, facilitating higher density development, lessening vehicular impacts across the Capital as a whole, and the creation of places ‘designed for people’ rather than vehicles. 47. Delivering car-free or car-lite development is therefore not simply an exercise in avoiding undue localised parking pressures. Crudely, if parking everywhere to be maximised, up to around a 90% occupancy or ‘stress’ level as is a widely used rule-of-thumb in relation to Lambeth Council’s 2009 parking survey guidance note (the ‘Lambeth Methodology’), everything would be in a bit of a mess. Nonetheless a ‘starting point’ as in London Plan policy T6 is equally not synonymous with a requirement. It suggests some flexibility and judgement. In my view existing levels of parking stress may legitimately form part of the picture as to whether development would result in unacceptable effects if not being secured as car-free or car-lite. 48. In that context, the appellant’s Parking & Servicing Strategy- Impacts Report (‘PSIR’) looks at observed parking stress in line with the Lambeth Methodology.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Simply put parking spaces with a 200m radius of the appeal site have been surveyed, and levels of occupancy observed on two occasions. Beat surveys were undertaken on Tuesday 7 September and Wednesday 8 September 2021 between 01:30 and 02:00, times when demand for parking is likely at its peak. The higher the percentage of parking space occupancy, the higher the ‘stress’. 49. The PSIR records an average stress level of 63%, substantially below 90% (which is, as above, typically taken as an indication of unacceptable high parking stress). For the whole survey area, that is an average of 132 out of 209 spaces being occupied. That indicates strongly that there is significant latent capacity in the surrounding area. The PSIR goes further in looking at local car ownership relative to the prevailing nature of the area (as also alluded to by the existence of significant parking capacity). That rationally suggests that the proposal would generate pressures for an additional two parking 25 Noting the provisions of section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended. 26 Appellant statement of case, paragraph 2.4. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 spaces. Given the nature of the area and its accessibility, many individuals evidently already travel predominantly by other means. 50. Moreover table 3.1 of the PSIR shows that the aggregate parking stress figure is heavily skewed by Hainault Road (Zone LSN). The average of the two beat surveys undertaken there returned a stress level of 77%. Even if each flat increased parking demand by one car, an unlikely scenario four times higher than the maximum level advocated in a CPZ in PTAL rating 5 in Appendix 4 to the DPD, hypothetically 72 parking spaces would remain with 132 occupied resulting in a stress level of only 66%. There is furthermore no indication of existing permissions or coterminous schemes that meaningfully would alter parking stress levels.27 51. Given the fractional implications of the scheme, and notwithstanding the approach in emerging policy 68, I conclude that the proposal would not be unacceptable in respect of parking implications in the light of the foregoing. Even if I were wrong in that assessment, there is in any event the potential for car-free development to be secured via condition, or otherwise, were that necessary (to which the appellant is amenable).

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Other matters 52. Acknowledging current pressures for housing provision broadly and in the Borough, the provisions of the GPDO, and the support for brownfield development and increased density in the development plan and NPPF,28 the proposal would clearly have certain benefits. If effected the scheme would increase housing provision in an accessible location. Construction and maintenance of buildings generates employment, and new residents would bring trade to local services and facilities. The scheme would also bring variety to the size of flats at Essex Mansions. There would be betterment in terms of waste provision and also in terms of the availability of natural light at nos. 21- 30 Essex Mansions.29 53. I have also reasoned that the proposal would be, or could subject to conditions be rendered, acceptable in respect of the availability of natural light, the living conditions of future occupants, and as regards parking implications. However in those specific respects, and also were the development acceptable in all other respects, that would be effectively neutral in my overall assessment of the scheme.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Acceptability does not weigh significantly in favour of allowing an appeal, reflecting essentially the absence of harm. 54. The scheme would, by contrast, be clearly harmful to character and appearance and in relation to the living conditions of certain occupants of Integer Gardens in respect of privacy. Critically the support in the development plan and NPPF for new housing is not at the expense of ensuring that all development is well designed and appropriate for its location. I appreciate that my view of harm focuses on the implications of the use of proposed balconies. However they appear to be the awkward residual implication of a constrained site. The 27 PSIR paragraph 2.4.1. 28 Noting that opportunities to use airspace above existing residential premises is referenced in NPPF paragraph 120. e). 29 Albeit the former must be treated with some caution as rationally the development must only strictly be acceptable within its own terms, and the latter implication being incidental (there being nothing to suggest natural light at nos. 21 to 30 is inadequate at present). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298059 particular scheme before me may not of course be the sole means of achieving comparable benefits. Other material considerations therefore do not serve to justify allowing the appeal. Conclusion 55. Having considered the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

1 Essex Mansions, Essex Road South, Leytonstone, E11 1JP — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Tom Bristow INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12