Appeal 6000234

The appeal is dismissed.

Revised plans have been submitted with the appeal. These show two versions of the proposed development with the rooms furnished. The first set of plans makes no internal alterations but the second has moved the location of the bathroom within Flat 2. Given that these are internal alterations and are limited in scope, the revised plans do not involve a substantial difference to the application that was before the Council. Given that the plans were submitted alongside the appeal, parties have had the opportunity to comment on them and as such I do not consider that parties would be prejudiced by accepting the revised plans.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal upon highway safety • the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed flats with regard to light and outlook • the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance; and • The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is located on [address], directly opposite the junction with [address]. The existing side parking area would be partially lost due to the proposed side extension. The scheme includes two new parking areas at the front of the extended building, each served by a separate access point. These new access points would be positioned opposite the [address] junction. Due to the limited size of the parking areas, vehicles would appear to be unable to turn on-site and would need to reverse either into or out of the driveways. The Council determined that the quantum of parking spaces proposed would be acceptable and based on the information before me I find no substantive reason to disagree.

The London Borough of [name] of [name]; Policy and Guidance document, provides advice for new or extended crossovers to access properties from the carriageway across footways and/or verges like that proposed as part of the appeal scheme. This states that the authority reserves the right to refuse any proposed vehicle crossover within 10 metres of the radial kerb of any road junction which the proposed vehicular accesses would be.

Locating the two access points opposite a junction introduces multiple conflict points, increasing the likelihood for collisions due to turning movements, reduced visibility, and driver confusion. This arrangement would compromise the safe and efficient operation of the junction, particularly for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. The site is also located near to a bend in the road which can affect visibility, and this combined with vehicles entering and exiting the driveways in a reverse gear would fail to achieve a safe and suitable access arrangement for all users. The proposal would pose a significant safety risk to all road users and would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The volume of traffic in the area is disputed between the appellant and interested parties and I have no substantive evidence to support either position. Whilst the site is located in a residential area, it is not evident that vehicles are driven slower than the speed limit. The appellant has identified, using data from CrashMap, that there have been no recorded incidents involving vehicles or casualties over the past 25 years near to the site. However, the existing driveway appears to be large enough to allow vehicles to turn around within it so they could exit in a forward gear which would not be the case with the proposed driveways. Furthermore, the proposal would increase the number of vehicle crossovers close to a junction where there is an increased risk of conflict between road users.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would harm highway safety and as such, it would conflict with Policies 9 and 32 of the Bromley Local Plan (BLP) and Policy T4 of the London Plan (LP). These seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that on and off-street parking resulting from residential conversions will not cause unsafe or inconvenient highway conditions.

It is not disputed between the parties that the internal layout of Flat 1 on the ground floor would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that flat. Based on the information before me I find no reason to conclude otherwise.

Flat 2, located on the first floor, is designed as a two-bedroom, three-person unit. The appellant confirms that it exceeds the minimum internal space standards as set out in Policy D6 of the London Plan, albeit modestly. The layout, as shown in [name] of the appellant’s statement, is generally L-shaped, with windows at either end of the combined living room and kitchen, providing a dual aspect. This ensures adequate natural light and outlook, preventing the space feeling enclosed. The plans also indicate sufficient room for distinct living and dining areas, and the kitchen appears to offer appropriate storage for a flat of this size.

Circulation through shared living spaces is common in flats where space is limited. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that accessing bedrooms and the bathroom via the living area would significantly harm occupiers’ living conditions. Given the size, outlook and available light for the shared space, the layout is considered acceptable.

While the bathroom would lack a window, it is not a habitable room, and mechanical ventilation can be installed. There is no evidence to suggest this could not be achieved in this case.

The proposed gardens are modest in size, but they are rectangular in shape and would provide sufficient space for typical domestic activities related to properties of this size and occupation level. Although access to the garden for Flat 2 would be via the side alley, the distance is short, and the space would remain practical and accessible.

Therefore, the layout of the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed development. Consequently, the development would generally accord with Policies 4, 9 and 37 of the BLP and Policies D3 and D6 of the LP. These expect development, amongst other matters, to demonstrate the minimum space standards for dwellings set out in the LP and provide sufficient external private amenity space that is accessible and practical.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area. While the comings and goings associated with two separate flats may differ slightly from a typical single-family home, such movements are generally brief, and any associated noise would be limited in duration.

Permission has been granted by the Council to extend the property, and once completed, the dwelling could accommodate up to nine individuals1. The potential number of occupants of the proposal would not be significantly greater than that of a large family that could be accommodated in the extended property. As concluded above, the internal layout provides sufficient personal and shared space, with most bedrooms and communal areas positioned away from the party wall. This arrangement, along with the appropriately sized internal space, would help minimise noise and disturbance to the adjoining property.

The proposed gardens would be modestly sized but functional, and it has not been demonstrated that use by three or five individuals across the two gardens would generate materially more noise or disturbance than when used by a single household. The site is in a residential area and the use of these gardens for residential purposes would be appropriate in this context.

Even if the occupiers of the flats worked during the evenings with comings and goings occurring at night, this does not necessarily infer that there would be an unacceptable impact in terms of noise and disturbance to other nearby residents. The issues raised are not predicated on the use of the building but rather a matter of individual behaviour.

The proposal represents a limited intensification of use and would not result in a substantial increase in activity compared to the existing use. The introduction of two households within a single building would not fundamentally alter the character or 1 Application Reference: 23/04507/FULL6 function of the area, which remains predominantly residential. There is no substantive evidence that families would not occupy the proposed flats, and the flats would continue to be occupied in a manner consistent with the surrounding context.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers. Consequently, the development would accord with Policies 4, 9 and 37 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP. These expect developments, amongst other matters, to ensure the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings will not be harmed by noise and disturbance.

The Council has previously granted planning permission for various extensions to the appeal property. The current proposals seek similar additions in terms of scale and appearance, with the primary difference being the inclusion of a second front door.

The appeal site is situated in a predominantly residential area characterised by two-storey semi-detached and terrace dwellings with open gable roofs. Properties are generally set back behind front gardens or driveways, contributing to the areas open, suburban character. The appeal property reflects this pattern, featuring an open gable roof, front garden and side driveway.

The proposed two-storey side and rear extension would incorporate a hipped roof, with the front slope aligned to the host dwelling’s roof pitch. Its modest scale, set-back position, and use of matching materials would ensure it remains subordinate to the original dwelling and would not visually unbalance the semi-detached pair. As a result, the extended dwelling would sit comfortably within the surrounding build form.

Frontage treatments vary locally, and while the proposal may result in increased parking and domestic items at the front, this would not appear out of character given the prevalence of frontage parking in the area. The subdivision of the frontage would not fundamentally alter the residential and suburban character of the plot. The modest increase in refuse storage associated with two flats would not result in harmful visual clutter compared to the existing situation.

Although the garden would be subdivided, this would be largely screened by the dwelling itself. Glimpsed views of gated rear accesses are not uncommon in this context. The second front door, while less typical, has been designed to appear subordinate to the main entrance and would not significantly alter the dwelling’s appearance. Overall, the proposal when viewed as a whole would not appear overdeveloped and would maintain the open, suburban residential character of the area.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would generally accord with Policies 4, 9 and 37 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP. These expect residential conversions, amongst other matters, to not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area.

Concerns had been raised that the proposal sought approval to use the development as a House in [name], however, the scheme before me does not propose for the building to be used as such. I have determined the appeal based on the merits of the development before me.

The Council acknowledges that it can only demonstrate a 3.99 years housing land supply. In this instance, this would indicate that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The conversion of the house into two self-contained residential units would contribute a single additional dwelling and the Framework identifies that small and medium sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built-out relatively quickly. The reuse of the appeal building would also make effective use of land which is supported by the Framework and weighs in favour of the development. In light of the Council’s 5-year housing land supply position, I attribute modest weight in favour of the scheme to its contribution towards addressing this shortfall.

The scheme would provide economic benefits both during and after construction and the appellant indicates that the works would involve improving the energy efficiency of the property. Given the limited scale of the proposal the weight attributed to these benefits would be limited.

The appellant notes that development allowed under the dwellings permitted development rights could take place to achieve the proposed development. However, it is not clear that this would involve new vehicle crossovers as is proposed as part of this appeal. As such, it is not evident that this fallback position is comparable to the proposal before me nor that it would necessarily raise the same highway safety concerns that I have found above. As such, this weighs neither for nor against the scheme.

The proposal would not harm the living conditions of either nearby occupiers or the proposed flats occupants. Furthermore, it would not harm the character or appearance of the area. However, this would be expected of any development and weighs neither for nor against the scheme.

The proposal would not provide safe and suitable access and would harm highway safety. Policy 9 of the BLP expects residential conversions to ensure that on and off-street parking resulting from the development will not cause unsafe or inconvenient highway conditions. This policy is generally consistent with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework, particularly with regard to preventing or refusing development on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety and securing safe and secure accesses for all users. Taking into consideration the above matters, the scheme would conflict with the Framework in this regard, and I attach significant weight to this harm.

Overall, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, even when considered cumulatively, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance.

Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.