Appeal 6000306

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupants of 70 and [address] and [address], with particular reference to outlook.

[site address] is one of a pair of semi-detached bungalows set amongst similar style and age bungalows and 2 -storey dwellings. The stretch of [address] running along the side of No. [address] trees. This road links [address] to [address], the latter of which encircles a linear area of open space that consists of grassland and tree planting. At the junction between [address] and [address], as well as at other junctions within the locality, there are roughly triangular-shaped grass verges containing street trees.

Properties are broadly positioned within plots that are much deeper than they are wide, though corner plots are generally wider and larger overall. Private gardens are modest in size and back onto each other and collectively provide a generous open green space to the rear of the properties. These spaces are particularly noticeable where gardens run alongside a road or public footpath. All these factors contribute to a strong degree of harmony that influences the overall open and verdant character and appearance of this suburban location.

The appeal site consists of the lower section of the garden to No. 70. The proposal would demolish an existing detached garage building and erect a detached dormer bungalow facing [address], utilising the existing access. This would introduce a much larger structure than the existing garages and outbuildings I observed within rear gardens, in a prominent position, into the open green space to the rear of the properties fronting [address] and [address].

Due to the limited depth of the appeal site, the proposed dwelling would have a much shorter and overall smaller rear garden than those generally found in the locality. This arrangement would be noticeable from [address] as well as from neighbouring properties. Consequently, the proposal would appear cramped within the site and would sit at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the area, including the more spacious plots of surrounding residential properties.

The appellant has presented average distances between buildings on [address], [address] and [address]. They appear to relate to the spacing between buildings where they sit next to each other on the narrower width aspects of the plots. As the proposed plot is located between the longer depth aspects of No. 70 and No. [address], a comparison of such separation distances is of limited relevance.

It is noted that long gardens, including detached garage structures within these, that share a side boundary with a highway could have a limited active frontage. However, the combined distance of the side boundaries of No. 70 and 63 are not excessive, and as detailed above, this prevailing pattern of development contributes to the overall character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been drawn to a number of existing properties in the locality that have undergone extensions and alterations, including hip to gable loft conversions. As these relate to domestic extensions rather than a new dwelling, I cannot draw any direct comparison with the proposal that would weigh in its favour. The presence of these do not overcome the harm that I have otherwise found.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policies 4 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (January 2019) (LBBLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP). Together these policies seek, amongst other things, a high standard of design and layout that positively recognise and compliment the qualities of the surrounding area.

The relevant reason for refusal on the Council’s Decision Notice refers to Policy 8 of the LBBLP as well as Policies D1 and D4 of the LP. However, Policy 8 relates to the retention of space around residential buildings at first floor and above where the proposal is for a bungalow and not 2 or more storeys in height. Policy D1 relates to Boroughs undertaking area assessments and using these in preparing Development Plans to meet borough-wide growth requirements. Policy D4 covers delivering good design, including through the use of masterplans, design codes, interactive digital models, design reviews and maintaining design quality. Therefore, these policies are not directly relevant to this main issue.

The eaves and ridge heights of the proposed dwelling would not be dissimilar to the adjoining bungalows. However, it would have a larger footprint and be taller than the existing single detached garage on the appeal site that is positioned close to the rear boundary with No. 63.

The built form of the new dwelling would be closer to the rear elevations of No. 70 and [address] than the existing garage structure. The proposed block plan1 shows a distance of just under 6.86m between the rear elevation of No. 70 and the proposed dwelling. Both parties indicated that this gap has increased from that of a previous scheme. Whilst no spatial standards have been presented, it would still be in such close proximity that it would result in a marked reduction in the level of outlook from No. 70. These effects on outlook would also be overbearing from the rear elevation and private garden at No. 70.

The orientation of the proposed dwelling to run parallel with [address] means it would be angled away from the rear elevation of No. 72 at its closest point. The distance to the shared side boundary would also be greater here than at the far end of the garden. Due to this distance and the oblique angle, I am not persuaded that the appeal scheme would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 72.

The proposed house would provide a wider gap along the shared boundary with No. 63 compared to the existing garage. Moreover, a subordinate part of the proposed hipped roof would be positioned in this location with the roof sloping away from the boundary. Due to the positioning, height and roof design of these elements, it would have a neutral impact in terms of outlook and sense of overbearing on No. 63, even with the existing change in ground levels. The higher part of the proposed dwelling’s hipped roof would be at such a distance that it would not have an adverse effect.

It is claimed that the proposal is designed to be built at a lower level than the neighbouring properties. However, the submitted street scene plan2 does not appear to reflect this or the existing ground levels. I have determined the appeal based on the plans before me and from my site visit observations

[name] have found that the proposal would not cause a material adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 72 and 63, I have identified an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No. 70, with particular reference to outlook. This conflicts with Policies 4 and 37 of the LBBLP and Policy D3 of the LP, which include the requirement of all development proposals to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings

The relevant reason for refusal on the Council’s Decision Notice also refers to Policies D1 and D4 of the LP and, for the reasons outlined above, are not directly relevant to this main issue.

An unsubstantiated allegation that representations made by interested parties have misled the Council has been made. I have considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits.

I give significant weight to the conflict with Policies 4 and 37 of the LBBLP and Policy D3 of the LP, which are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in ensuring that development is sympathetic to local character and in the creation of a high standard of amenity for existing users. As a result, I find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council has stated that it has a deliverable housing supply of 2.4 years. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is applicable. Paragraph 11 d) ii) identifies that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact 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 certain key policies including securing well-designed places.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution in the delivery of a dwelling, improve biodiversity on the site and make a more efficient use of the land. The limited scale of the development means that I afford the provision of a new house within the context of the current shortfall, along with the other benefits listed above, moderate weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

It is asserted that the appeal site is not in a Conservation Area, No. 70 is not a listed building and there are no designations that would preclude redevelopment for a residential use. A lack of harm in these respects are neutral considerations that weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

On the other side of the balance, there would be an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area as well as on the living conditions of a neighbouring property, which would be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework. Given the long-lasting effects on both the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of residents, I attribute significant weight to this conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.