A planning appeal relating to the refusal to grant planning permission for four residential blocks in Romford has been rejected by the inspector, over fears that climate change would result in overheating in the future.
The original application submitted by Galliard Homes in January 2020 was rejected by the London Borough of Havering; a decision that was subsequently appealed. The proposal aimed to create four residential blocks ranging from five to nine storeys in order to provide 82 homes in total.
The appellant had employed a building services and sustainability consultant to carry out an overheating analysis (OA). From this, it was decided that mechanical ventilation and heat recovery systems (MVHR) would be required. Although the Local Authority had doubts about the potential effectiveness of such a system in hot summer months, the inspector stated in their report that they found "no reason to doubt the OA's technical position on this point."
The inspector had concerns over the fact the OA suggested many of the proposed dwellings could suffer from overheating under future climate change conditions. Whilst the OA put forward various recommendations to improve air movement and reduce the risk of overheating, including the installation of external louvres or shades, the inspector noticed that neither of those things were included in the proposed development. There is also no certainty that future residents will be able to afford the required improvements to avoid overheating. Therefore future overheating could not be guaranteed to be avoided.
There is also an A road next to the proposed site, meaning residents facing the road would likely keep their windows closed to reduce traffic noise, further impacting on the issue of overheating and reducing the input of fresh air into premises.
Combining the overheating concerns with potential traffic noise issues, the inspector concluded that "the overall proposal would fail to provide suitably high quality, comfortable accommodation for occupants of the proposed development in terms of overheating of units under future climate change conditions, and the interior and exterior comfort implications of noise for occupants of some units."
Although there were other factors to consider, both positive and negative, on balance it was decided that the potential harm outweighed the benefits and the appeal was dismissed.
