Appeal 6000273

The appeal is dismissed.

Despite the description of development in the banner heading above, at my site visit I observed that the domestic workshop had already been demolished.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling in an area containing a mix of two storey houses and bungalows with pitched and hipped roofs. It sits above [address] and as the site abuts properties on [address], it has a larger rear and side garden than many other dwellings in the vicinity. There are some garages and sheds in the neighbouring rear grounds, but the prevailing development pattern is of houses alongside the road with good-sized rear gardens, giving the rear area a spacious and open character.

The Council’s reason for refusal does not refer to its Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (SPD). Nevertheless, this provides guidance on the interpretation of adopted planning policies, including principles for achieving good design. Amongst other things, the SPD indicates that the appropriate layout and density for a site should derive from a creative design-led approach which responds to the particular characteristics of a site, its surroundings and the needs of residents.

The proposal includes a single storey detached dwelling located in the rear garden. Whilst the new structure would be smaller than the nearby houses, its size and footprint would be in stark contrast to the existing modest-scale outbuildings in the surrounding gardens. As such, it would appear discordant in views of the rear garden environment from neighbouring properties.

Some outbuildings and extensions in the locality have flat roofs, and the profile of the proposed bungalow is intended to limit its height and bulk. Nonetheless, the existing rear structures are not comparable in scale or position to the proposed house which owing to its substantial flat roof would have a boxy appearance at odds with the predominantly hipped and pitched roof dwellings nearby. Although the topography and surrounding built and natural features would screen some views of the new building, its incongruous appearance would be evident from neighbouring properties and the access road on the opposite side of the lane.

A lengthy rear garden for the occupants of the house at [site address] would be retained. However, as the proposed dwelling would occupy much of the new plot and lie close to the rear and side boundaries, it would appear cramped compared to the spacious nature of the surrounding area.

There is reference to the Council’s approval of a pitched roof chalet bungalow at [address] which was subsequently implemented1. As that house has greater separation from its flank boundaries and lies within a more conventional building line, it is not comparable to the scheme currently before me.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. The Council’s reason for refusal did not identify any conflict with policies in the London Plan 2021. Nevertheless, the appeal scheme would be contrary to Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP) which require developments to complement the scale, form and layout of adjacent buildings and areas, amongst other things.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including the standard of the proposed accommodation, living conditions, ecology, drainage, highway safety and parking. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposal.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). It refers to a 3.99 year supply equating to 3,245 units in the period 2021/22 to 2025/26. However, a subsequent appeal decision in October 20242 concluded that the Council had a 2.4 year supply equating to 2,628 dwellings when taking account of the London Plan target and factoring in delivery shortfalls since 2019/20. Further, the [name] result for 2023 confirms that housing delivery over the past three years has fallen below the 75% referred to in the Framework. As there is a shortfall in housing provision, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged.

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework confirms that in such circumstances, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would 1 Planning Application Ref: 19/02525/FULL1 2 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/W/24/3340223 significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places.

The Framework seeks to boost housing supply and highlights the important contribution small sites can make. The proposal would make a modest contribution of one home to the supply of housing. It would contribute towards Bromley’s housing supply, making a modest difference to addressing the shortfall, and therefore I attribute moderate weight to this benefit.

The biodiversity net gain carries weight in favour of the proposed development. However, given its relatively small scale, this benefit would be limited.

In contrast, the proposed scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with the Framework where it requires developments to be sympathetic to local character and seeks good design. Indeed, the Framework states that development that is not well designed should be refused and I must pay particular regard to this when applying paragraph 11(d)(ii). The proposal would also be contrary to Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the BLP. This matter carries significant weight against the appeal scheme. Consequently, the adverse impact I have identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.