Appeal 6000276

The appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.

An application for costs has been made by [name] ([name] of Tours HA Ltd). This application is subject to a separate decision.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. It has indicated that, had it been in a position to do so, it would have refused planning permission for two reasons. These reasons are outlined in the officer’s report which was submitted as the Council’s statement of case.

I have taken the description of development used in the heading above from the officer report, for reasons of clarity. The original application form referenced the change of use to Use Class C3b. However, this Use Class relates to dwellings for up to six people living together as a single household where care is provided for the residents. The proposal however contains seven units of living accommodation and is therefore outside of the limitations set by the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). Consequently, it is considered as a [name] use. The amended description has been used in the appellant’s statement of case and therefore I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by me adopting this description.

There is no dispute between the main parties as to the acceptability of the proposed change of use. I see no reason to disagree with this position.

Amended plans were submitted during the course of the application. I have therefore considered the most recent set of amendments, as these are the ones the Council would have made its decision on, had it been able to do so.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locally listed building (the appeal property, [site address] ); and • whether the proposed development would ensure adequate living conditions for future occupiers of Unit 4, with regard to outlook and the provision of natural light.

The appeal site relates to a two-storey detached property with accommodation in the roof. Surrounding development mainly comprises of residential properties of various sizes and styles. Alongside [address] (No.4), the appeal property is a locally listed building. As such, it is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The local listing description describes the properties as an attractive pair of detached suburban houses with red brick walls, plain clay tile roofs, red brick chimneys, sliding sash windows and prominent Gothic-style porches. Apart from a small single storey rear extension, the appeal property appears relatively unchanged. No.4, however, has been extended with a front dormer and rear extensions. The significance of appeal property, as a NDHA, is principally derived from its distinctive style, including its sash windows, large front bay, prominent chimney stacks and Gothic porch, which is distinctive within the street scene.

The proposed first floor rear extension would be constructed above an existing ground floor extension and would feature a lean to roof, with a flat roofed half dormer feature and rooflights. The existing rear chimney stack would partially remain, with small dormers erected on either side.

The proposed first floor rear extension would project across more than half the width of the dwelling. When taken as a whole with the existing ground floor extension and the proposed single storey element, the proposal would dominate the rear elevation, failing to respect the property’s proportions and obscuring most of the existing rear elevation. The proposed lean to roof with a dormer would relate poorly to the existing dwelling, further exacerbating the dominance of the proposed extension. The roof dormers on either side of the chimney would appear incongruous and contrived, detracting from the significance of the property as a NDHA.

In contrast, the front dormer would relate well to existing features within the front elevation and would be balanced in scale in proportion to the roof slope. It would also be set in from the side of the roof slope.

The dormer on the side elevation would be situated in between two chimney stacks, and would be relatively small, and would be largely obscured by the two chimney stacks. It would sit well below the ridge of the roof. Consequently, it would not be prominent and would not detract from the architectural features of the dwelling.

[name] acknowledge that the proposed works to the rear of the property would not be highly prominent within the public realm due to screening to the rear of the site, they would fail to relate well to the host dwelling, detracting from its architectural features and significance as a NDHA. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that the use of materials to match the existing dwelling would sufficiently mitigate the harm identified.

I acknowledge that No.4 has been extended significantly to the rear, following an allowed appeal in 2007. However, this permission pre-dates the adopted local plan and was therefore assessed in a different policy context. Nevertheless, the fact that other extensions have been granted permission is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits. This development is therefore of limited weight in favour of the proposal.

The former locally listed property at [address] was demolished and replaced with a care home. However, from the information before me, I am not satisfied that this is directly comparable to the appeal scheme, given this scheme does not seek to demolish the property.

I also acknowledge that numerous other properties in the area have been demolished and redeveloped or extended. I am not satisfied that the referenced examples are directly comparable to the appeal scheme as they comprise flatted developments and a care home. The evidence does also not suggest that the original properties were locally listed. In any case, I do not know the circumstances under which they were constructed or their status with regard to planning permission. As such I attribute limited weight to any comparison with them, and they do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

To conclude, whilst elements of the appeal scheme may be acceptable, when considered as a whole the proposal would fail to respond well to the existing dwelling, detracting from its architectural character and resulting in considerable harm to its character and appearance. This would undermine the property’s significance.

Therefore, the scheme would therefore be contrary to Policy 37 and 39 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that is sympathetic to the character, appearance and special local interest of the building.

The windows serving Unit [address] to the proposed first floor rear extension. The proposed extension may breach a 45-degree line drawn from the centre of the windows; however, views would be mostly over the proposed lean to roof, which would not significantly obscure the outlook from the windows. With regard to natural light, given the orientation of the site and relative size of the windows to the room they serve, as well as the position of the lean-to roof form, any reduction in sunlight would be minor and limited to morning time. Overall, the scheme would ensure adequate outlook and natural light for the occupiers of Unit 4.

Consequently, the scheme would ensure that adequate living conditions would be provided for the future occupiers of Unit 4, with regard to outlook and natural light. This would be in accordance with Policies 9 and 37 of the BLP and Polices D3 and D6 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure a high-quality living environment for future occupiers.

Decision makers are required by the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in the Equality Act 2010 to advance equality of opportunity and to eliminate unlawful discrimination in relation to, amongst others, people with disabilities.

I have had due regard to the PSED in considering the information provided by the appellant regarding the need for this type of accommodation in the area. However, as it has not been demonstrated that these improvements could not be achieved by a scheme with a different external design that would avoid the harm identified to the NDHA, I attach little weight to the equality implications of the proposal in favour of the appeal.

The scheme would provide adequate parking and would not harm neighbouring amenity or highway safety. These are however considered neutral factors and do not weight in favour of, nor against the appeal.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the development would result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of a NDHA.

In favour of the appeal is the provision of supported living accommodation for adults with mental health needs, assisting them in leading independent lives and promoting a healthy lifestyle. The scheme is also in an accessible location and would make efficient and effective use of the property and a brownfield site. It would also create some new employment opportunities for staff at the facility. The appellant has indicated that the scheme would be brought forward relatively quickly. The Greater London Authority also supports the principle of the scheme. I afford these benefits limited weight in favour of the appeal, given the relatively small scale of the scheme. I am therefore not satisfied that the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the harm to the NDHA.

In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused. [planning inspector] - INSPECTOR