Appeal 6000315

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted a [name] (PS) as part of the appeal. This information does not involve a substantial difference or fundamental change. Due to the nature of the information, the representations made from interested parties, and that the Council has had the opportunity to review the information, I am satisfied that taking it into account would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. As such I have accepted the PS.

The appellant has referenced a draft legal agreement to allow the owner of [site address] and the owners of the adjacent proposed dwelling to have access to the garden. However, there is no draft legal agreement before me and therefore I have not considered it in making my decision.

The Council has stated that following consideration of the submitted PS it is not pursuing the third reason for refusal listed in the Council’s Decision Notice. I have had regard to the submissions in establishing the main issues, which I set out below.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] , with particular regard to outlook and the provision of private amenity space; • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to the provision of private amenity space; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to on-street parking.

The appeal site is a linear parcel of open land that sits to the side of [site address] , which is a traditional end terrace property. Together, with the space to the side of [address], it provides a spacious and verdant junction between [address] and [address]. Moreover, the open nature of the appeal site, in conjunction with the adjoining gardens, provides a spacious gap between the tightly knit built form of the housing that surrounds it. This sense of openness is enhanced by the fall in ground levels from [address] in a westerly direction.

The appeal site’s narrow and deep proportions reflect those of the prevailing plots of the predominantly terraced and semi-detached properties in the locality. These characteristics make a positive contribution towards the overall character and appearance of the suburban location.

The introduction of a detached 2-storey dwelling adjacent to No. 23 (Plot 1) with a minimal setback from the pavement to its side elevation would significantly encroach into the openness on this side of the road junction. This arrangement, with a modest private garden to the rear, would give it a cramped appearance within its plot.

A second detached 2-storey dwelling would be located to the rear section of the site facing [address] (Plot 2). This positioning would significantly erode the spacious gap between No. 23 and [address]. Moreover, its setback would be shallower than that found to the existing properties on [address], representing a noticeable difference in the established building line.

The footprint of this property would also be wide and shallow, with a private garden to the side, and as such would be visibly at odds with the narrow and deep format of the surrounding properties, with private gardens to the rear. The arrangement of this property, including the built form’s very close proximity to the front and rear boundaries, would also give it a cramped appearance within its plot.

All these factors would disrupt the prevailing pattern of development in the area and would be visible from the public highway as well as neighbouring properties.

The proposed dwellings would be of a similar height to, and share some of the architectural detailing of, the adjoining properties. However, Plot 1 would be detached from, wider than, and with a different roof design than, the adjoining terrace on [address], which would compound the harm I have identified above.

It has been brought to my attention that the site previously contained a number of trees that have been removed. I saw an established tree to the southwest corner of the site that is shown on the plans to be retained. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, suitable landscaping could have been secured by means of a planning

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 3, 4 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (January 2019) (LBBLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP). Taken together these require housing developments to achieve a high standard of design and layout that enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness.

The Council’s Decision Notice refers to Policy 73 of the LBBLP and Policy G7 of the LP, which seek proposals to, wherever possible, retain existing trees of value. On the basis that the existing tree on the site would be retained, these policies are not directly relevant to this main issue. Living conditions of occupiers of [site address]

I observed that the appeal site was open or enclosed by low railings with some limited vegetation to its boundaries with [address] and [address]. This, along with its overall condition, indicated that it was not in use as private amenity space in association with No. 23.

There is a small private amenity space to the rear of No. 23, which is significantly smaller than the deep and narrow gardens of the adjoining properties. Based on the evidence submitted and from my own observations, this arrangement has been in situ for a period of time. Consequently, the appeal scheme would not result in the reduction of private amenity space currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No. 23.

Due to the gap between Plot 1 and No. 23, as well as the positioning and extent of the depth of the new house in relation to the rear elevation of No. 23, sufficient space would be retained around the properties, which would mean an overbearing effect or unacceptably restricted outlook would not be created.

Whilst joint use of Plot 1’s garden would raise some practical matters, I am satisfied that the existing private amenity space arrangement with No. 23 is established and had I been minded to allow the appeal, such an agreement would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

I note that an interested party has submitted evidence that indicates No. 23 and the appeal site are in the same ownership. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, this matter is not a determinative factor in this case.

Concern has been expressed that windows to the rear of Plot 2 could impact upon the privacy of neighbouring properties. Whilst ground levels fall to the west of the site, the existence of high boundary fencing would screen any overlooking from the proposed ground floor patio windows. Moreover, the first floor landing and bathroom windows are shown to be obscurely glazed. Consequently, these windows would not result in any adverse harm.

Access rights for neighbouring properties have been raised and there is nothing before me that indicates that any arising matters could not be resolved under separate legislation. This would be a civil matter that falls outside the planning regime.

In conclusion, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] , with particular regard to outlook and the provision of private amenity space. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the LBBLP and Policy D3 and D6 of the LP. Collectively, these require, amongst other things, an acceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings, provision of sufficient external private amenity space and delivery of appropriate outlook.

The Council’s submissions fail to substantiate the part of the reason for refusal in the Decision Notice relating to unsatisfactory private amenity space for future occupants of the new dwellings. The Council’s Officer Report states that the garden amenity space for each of the proposed dwellings would be of a suitable size and proportions and exceed minimum amenity standards. There is nothing before me and from my own assessment to indicate that the size of these gardens would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to the provision of private amenity space. Therefore, there is no conflict in this regard with Policies 4 and 37 of the LBBLP and Policies D3 and D6 of the LP.

The Council states that the site has a public transport access level of 2 and the LP parking standards require a maximum of up to 1 space per unit. Each of the proposed dwellings would have a single off-street parking space.

There is an existing dropped kerb on [address] serving an off-street parking space located close to the private amenity space to No. 23. It is claimed that this space is no longer linked to No. 23 and it was not in use when I visited the site. The proposal would see the removal of this space. Nevertheless, the submitted PS, which appears to have been undertaken in accordance with an industry accepted method for parking assessments, identifies that there is spare capacity in the applicable survey area to accommodate the demand for the loss of the existing parking space.

In light of these findings and with confirmation from the Council that sufficient on-street parking would be likely to be available for residents of No. 23, as well as from my own observations, I have come to the same conclusion.

Raised concerns regarding the timing of the survey are noted. However, the Council did not dispute the claimed use of the ‘[name] in the PS, or its findings.

Consequently, the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety, with particular regard to on-street parking. I find no conflict with Policy 32 of the LBBLP and Policy T4 of the LP which requires that road safety is not significantly adversely affected.

The Council’s Decision Notice refers to Policy 34 of the LBBLP and Policy T4 of the LP. As these policies relate to, amongst other things, the provision of highway infrastructure, including new vehicle crossings, as well as supporting capacity, connectivity and safeguarding land for public transport projects, they are not directly relevant to this main issue.

I give significant weight to the conflict with Policies 3, 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. I find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council has indicated that it has a deliverable housing supply of 2.4 years, and it is in the process of preparing an updated five-year housing land supply position. An undisputed claim by the appellant has the figure at 9 months. In either case and applying the lower figure for the purpose of my assessment, 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 2 accessible dwellings, that would represent the efficient use of land within an established residential area with access to facilities and public transport. There would also be an improvement to biodiversity, the provision of electric vehicle charging points and it is indicated that materials would be sourced from sustainable stocks.

The limited scale of the development means that I afford the provision of the 2 new houses within the context of the current shortfall, along with the other benefits listed above, moderate weight in favour of the appeal scheme. I have considered; the three overarching objectives of the planning system given in the Framework; paragraphs 129 and 130 of the Framework relating to achieving appropriate densities; and Policy H2 of the LP that pro-actively supports well-designed new homes on small sites.

It is asserted that the appeal site is not in a designated area and would not impact upon public open space provision. 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, which would be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework. Given the long-lasting effects on the character and appearance of the area, I attribute significant weight to this conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that the 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.