"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 November 2023 by G Sylvester BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 January 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/W/23/3323262 Sophie, Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, Romford, Essex RM4 1JP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Vitalii Morgan against the decision of Epping Forest District Council. • The application Ref EPF/2186/22, dated 21 September 2022, was refused by notice dated 15 December 2022. • The development proposed is the demolition of an existing dwelling 2 storey, 1 bedroom house and the construction of a new 2 storey, 4 bedroom (8 person) single family dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of an existing dwelling 2 storey, 1 bedroom house and the construction of a new 2 storey, 4 bedroom (8 person) single family dwelling at Sophie, Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, Romford, Essex RM4 1JP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref EPF/2186/22, dated 21 September 2022, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Procedural Matters 2.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision The Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011 to 2033 Part One (“the LP”) was adopted by the Council in March 2023 and replaced the Epping Forest District Local Plan 1998 and Alterations 2006. As such, the policies of those replaced plans are no longer part of the development plan and have no weight in determining this appeal. The Council has confirmed that it finds the appeal proposal to be contrary to LP Policy H1. 3. I am required to determine the appeal in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In so doing I have taken account of the LP Policy referred to above, and those referred to me by the Council. The appellant has had an opportunity to comment on the relevance of the LP to this appeal. As such, I am satisfied that my approach to determining the appeal would not unfairly prejudice the main parties. 4. The Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) on 19 December 2023. All references to the Framework in this decision relate to the revised document. The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevance of the revised Framework.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision I am therefore satisfied that the main parties to this appeal would not be unfairly prejudiced by me proceeding to determine the appeal on this basis. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision I am therefore satisfied that the main parties to this appeal would not be unfairly prejudiced by me proceeding to determine the appeal on this basis. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/23/3323262 5. The Council has granted prior approval1 under Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (“the GPDO”), for the enlargement of the bungalow by the construction of a proposed additional storey extension to the principal part of the existing dwelling. In determining this appeal, I have had regard to this development (“the Class AA scheme”). Main Issues 6. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the mix of housing within the Council’s area, with particular regard to LP Policy H1, and • if there is any harm whether it would be outweighed by any other considerations. Reasons Housing mix 7. LP Policy H1 (part E) sets out that the Council will resist the loss of bungalows as part of its approach to housing mix, which seeks to ensure that homes address local needs, including housing for people with accessibility requirements and older persons. The supporting text to LP Policy H1 advises that bungalows can play an important role because of their potential ease of adaptation, such that they can provide choice for people with accessibility requirements, including the current and future needs of older people.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision According to the Policy’s supporting text, the stock of bungalows in the Council’s area has been gradually eroded and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment provides evidence of an ageing population profile over the period of the LP. In determining this appeal, I have no substantive evidence to the contrary. 8. The appeal bungalow occupies a generous plot of land with a long rear garden. It contains several rooms on the ground floor and a first floor room mostly contained within a box dormer in part of the roof space. There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal property is a bungalow. It therefore contributes to the stock of bungalows in the Council’s area and thus the overall mix of housing types within it. 9. The appeal proposal would replace the existing bungalow with a comparatively large two-storey house. It would be built to be accessible, with generous circulation space on all floors and an internal access lift. Nonetheless, the proposed dwelling would be significantly different in terms of scale, form and the configuration of living accommodation to a bungalow.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision In a bungalow, most, if not all rooms and living facilities are located on the ground floor and therefore more likely to be suited to a household of older persons and those with accessibility requirements. Consequently, I find that the appeal proposal would result in the loss of a bungalow. 10. The appeal bungalow is asserted as needing improvement. However, there is limited evidence before me to suggest that it could not be modernised and/or adapted to make it suitable for occupation by an older person or persons with accessibility requirements. I saw that the bungalow is set back from the road by a considerable distance and has a spacious frontage for car parking. This 1 Ref. EPF/1015/23 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/23/3323262 would be likely to allow cars to be parked close to the front door. I see no basis in the evidence before me that the stepped access to the bungalow could not be improved to meet accessibility requirements. I am not convinced on the evidence before me that the maintenance burden of the spacious rear garden, which appeared to be set to grass with a number of trees growing within it, would necessarily make the property unsuitable for older persons or persons with accessibility requirements. 11. Facilities within the village are relatively limited, however there is a convenience store near to the junction with Oak Hill Road that is connected to the appeal site via footways on a route that is not particularly hilly. In terms of travel, I have no substantive evidence to suggest that older persons are any more unlikely than other age groups to own and drive cars. In any case, there are bus stops nearby on Oak Hill Road and bus services to facilitate travel for residents of the bungalow to larger settlements where a greater range of services would be available. The evidence indicates that bus service 375 passes through the village to reach larger settlements. 12.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision For these reasons, I am not convinced on the evidence before me that the appeal bungalow would be an unattractive choice of dwelling for older people, including persons with accessibility requirements. I therefore conclude on this issue that the loss of the bungalow would have a detrimental effect on the mix of housing in the Council’s area, contrary to LP Policy H1, insofar as it seeks to resist the loss of bungalows which could otherwise meet the needs of older people and persons with accessibility requirements. Furthermore, it would conflict with Framework paragraph 63, insofar as it seeks to ensure that housing reflects the sizes, types and tenures that are needed for different groups in the community. Whether any harm would be outweighed by other considerations 13. The Class AA scheme would result in a first floor being added to part of the bungalow and in so doing would significantly increase the height of its external walls to this element. This would change the form of the dwelling from a bungalow to a two storey house with a single storey element to its side. As such, the Class AA scheme would not have the form of a bungalow or a chalet bungalow. 14.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision A fallback position must be realistic with more than merely a theoretical possibility of it being carried out. The Class AA scheme would provide additional living space at the property to contribute to meeting the appellant’s requirement for additional living space as part of meeting their accommodation needs. Although I have not been made aware of how the Class AA fallback scheme would be financed, I have limited evidence to substantiate concerns that it would not represent a viable fallback position either financially or practically. Consequently, on the evidence before me I am satisfied that there is more than merely a theoretical possibility of the Class AA scheme being implemented in the event that the appeal before me was to fail, and it therefore amounts to a realistic fallback development. 15. The realistic fallback development would be markedly different in scale, form and appearance to the appeal proposal. Nonetheless, implementation of the fallback position would result in the creation of a two storey dwellinghouse with living accommodation across two floors.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision The evidence before me shows that it would not resemble a single storey bungalow or a chalet bungalow in either https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision The evidence before me shows that it would not resemble a single storey bungalow or a chalet bungalow in either https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/23/3323262 appearance, form or internal layout. Therefore, the fallback development would result in the loss of the existing bungalow, for which there is a realistic prospect of implementation should this appeal fail. For these reasons, the fallback development is a matter of considerable weight in favour of the appeal proposal. Other Matters 16. I am referred to several unsuccessful appeals for proposals that would have resulted in the loss of a bungalow, contrary to Policy H1 of the Submission Version 2017 of the emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan, which sought to resist the loss of bungalows. While some general similarities can be drawn with those appeal cases, full details of those cases, including the evidence placed before the Inspectors, are not before me in this appeal. Therefore, I cannot be certain that they are directly comparable to the proposal before me. 17.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision Nonetheless, it would appear from the decisions in the Theydon Bois appeal2, the Nazeing appeal3, and the Chigwell appeal4, that despite the existence of the national permitted development right to provide additional floors of living accommodation to those bungalows, none of those appeal proposals benefited from detailed schemes approved under the GPDO’s prior approval process. As such, no more than limited weight was afforded by the respective Inspectors to the potential fallback developments in those cases. Those cases are materially different to the appeal proposal before me which does have an approved Class AA scheme under the GPDO. 18. In the Loughton appeal5 the bungalow appeared to benefit from a detailed planning permission for a first floor extension and is therefore more akin to the circumstances in the appeal before me. However, the Inspector in that appeal found that implementation of the first floor extension would have retained the form of a bungalow, thus avoiding its loss. In contrast, and for the preceding reasons, I have found that the implementation of the Class AA scheme would not retain a dwelling with the form of a bungalow at the appeal site.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision As such, the Loughton appeal is materially different to the appeal before me. 19. I have given careful regard to the appeal decisions provided by the Council. However, for the reasons given above they are of limited relevance to my considerations in this appeal. Therefore, they do not alter my conclusions on this appeal, which I have determined on its individual merits based on the specific evidence before me. Planning Balance 20. The proposed development would result in the loss of a bungalow and thus would have an adverse effect on the mix of housing in the Council’s area, contrary to LP Policy H1, insofar as it seeks to ensure a range of housing to meet the needs of different groups. Although I have not identified any other harms, the harm identified would bring the appeal proposal into conflict with the development plan as a whole. 2 APP/J1535/W/21/3277935 3 APP/J1535/D/21/3284249 4 APP/J1535/W/21/3268775 5 APP/J1535/D/20/3252852 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/23/3323262 21. However, for the reasons given above, the fallback development has a realistic prospect of being implemented were this appeal to fail and would result in the loss of the appeal bungalow. As such, it is a material consideration of considerable weight in favour of the appeal proposal. The weight I have attached to it is sufficient to outweigh the harm the appeal proposal would cause to the housing mix within the Council’s area, in particular in meeting the needs of older people and persons with accessibility requirements. As such, it indicates that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Conditions 22. The Council has suggested the imposition of a number of planning conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed, which I have considered in accordance with the tests for imposing conditions set out in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary I have amended the wording of the suggested conditions to ensure compliance with the tests. In the interests of certainty of the planning permission granted, conditions are imposed to necessarily indicate the time limit for implementation and specify the approved plans. 23.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision Details of surface water drainage disposal are necessary to ensure the development is suitably drained to avoid increasing flood risk to other properties. These details must be agreed before development commences to ensure the development is satisfactorily drained upon completion of surfaces generating water runoff. 24. A pre-commencement condition is also necessary in the interests of public health to ensure that the site is investigated for potential land contamination. 25. Broad details of hard surfaces are shown on the submitted drawings. However, specific landscaping details are necessary to ensure that the development respects the character and appearance of the area. I am satisfied that finished levels of the entire development site, which could potentially be affected by the deposition of excavated material, must be agreed through the landscaping condition in the interests of the appearance of the area and living conditions of nearby occupiers. 26.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision To safeguard trees, a condition is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultual Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan, the latter includes the timing for installation and removal of tree protection measures. 27. Conditions are necessary to ensure the development delivers a net gain in biodiversity in accordance with LP Policy DM1; meets the water efficiency standard in LP Policy DM19; and is provided with infrastructure capable of achieving a connection to a superfast broadband network in accordance with LP Policy D5. For certainty as to the details of an alternative equivalent broadband service, I have required the Council’s approval. 28. To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the flanking properties it is necessary to impose a condition requiring upper floor side facing windows to be obscurely glazed and non-opening, and to control the use of flat roofs. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/23/3323262 29. A condition is necessary to ensure the development is constructed to meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’, in accordance with LP Policy H1. 30. In the interests of highway safety, a condition to require the provision of wheel washing facilities is necessary. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby occupiers a condition is necessary to control construction working hours. 31. Requiring the external surfaces of the proposed dwelling to match those specified on the approved drawings unnecessarily duplicates condition 2. As such, I have not imposed this suggested condition. 32. The justification for restricting permitted development rights at the site within several classes of the GPDO is expressed in broad terms and does not amount to the clear justification that is necessary to demonstrate why such rights should be restricted by conditions. Therefore, this condition would not meet the tests and is unnecessary, and is not imposed. Conclusion 33.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — Appeal Decision The proposed development would result in the loss of a bungalow and thus would have an adverse effect on the mix of housing in the Council’s area, contrary to LP Policy H1, in particular for older persons and those with accessibility requirements. Although I have not identified any other planning harms, this would bring the development into conflict with the development plan as a whole. However, for the reasons given above and having taken account of all matters raised, the weight I attach to the fallback development in this specific case indicates that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. As such, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — G Sylvester INSPECTOR Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 185/02/01 Rev P1, 186/02/00 Rev P1, 186/02/02 Rev P1, 186/02/04 Rev P1, 186/02/06 Rev P1, 186/02/08 Rev P1, 186/02/10 Rev P1, 186/02/12 Rev P1, 186/02/14 Rev P1, 186/02/16 Rev P1, 186/02/18 Rev P1, 186/02/20 Rev P1, 186/02/26, 187/07/01. 3) No development shall take place until details of surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved surface water disposal details and shall be provided on site prior to the first occupation and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development. 4) (A) No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination shall have been submitted to and approved in writing https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — G Sylvester Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/23/3323262 by the local planning authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner, in accordance with British Standard BS 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) (or equivalent British Standard and Model Procedures if replaced), and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. (B) No development shall take place where (following the risk assessment) land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed remediation scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — G Sylvester The remediation scheme shall be sufficiently detailed and thorough to ensure that upon completion the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to its intended use. The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out and upon completion a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is occupied. (C) Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the approved development that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These approved schemes shall be carried out before the development is resumed or continued.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — G Sylvester 5) No development above ground floor slab shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including an implementation programme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hard landscaping details shall include: proposed materials and finished levels or contours, car parking layout; and means of enclosure. The details of soft landscape works shall include the plans for planting to the front of the property, including full written specifications and schedules of plants. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the approved implementation programme. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting or establishment of any tree, or shrub or plant, that tree, shrub, or plant or any replacement is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree or shrub, or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted, shall be planted at the same place. 6) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a scheme to enhance the ecological value of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — G Sylvester The ecological value shall be quantified using the Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — G Sylvester The ecological value shall be quantified using the Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/23/3323262 (BIAC) where appropriate. The approved scheme shall be carried out before occupation of the development and thereafter retained. 7) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until Tree Protection has been installed and thereafter retained in accordance with the Crown Tree Consultancy 'Tree Protection Plan' drawing number: CCL 10997/TPP Rev 1, dated 15 August 2022. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the BS 5837 Arboricultural Report: Impact Assessment & Method Statement by Crown Tree Consultancy dated 15 August 2022. If any tree, shrub or hedge shown to be retained in the Arboricultural Report is removed, uprooted or destroyed, dies, or becomes severely damaged or diseased during development activities or within 3 years of the completion of the development, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same size and species shall be planted within 3 months at the same place.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — G Sylvester If within a period of five years from the date of planting any replacement tree, shrub or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed, or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall, within 3 months, be planted at the same place. 8) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until it is provided with the necessary infrastructure to enable its connection to a superfast broadband network or an alternative equivalent service to be approved in writing by the local planning authority. 9) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until measures have been incorporated to ensure a maximum water consumption of 110 litres use per person per day. 10) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows in the side elevations at first floor level have been fitted with obscure glazing with a minimum privacy level 3 obscurity, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the internal floor level of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscure glazing shall be retained thereafter.

"Sophie", Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, ROMFORD, RM4 1JP — Epping Forest District Council — G Sylvester 11) The roof of the dwelling hereby permitted shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, patio or similar amenity area. 12) The dwelling shall not be occupied until the Building Regulations Optional requirement Part M4(2) 'Accessible and Adaptable Dwelling' standards has been complied with. 13) No deliveries, external running of plant and equipment or demolition and construction works, other than internal works not audible outside the site boundary, shall take place on the site other than between the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 on Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturday and not at all on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays. 14) Wheel washing facilities shall be installed and utilised to clean the wheels of construction vehicles before they leave the site. Any mud or other material deposited on nearby roads as a result of the construction of the development shall be removed. End of schedule https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8