Appeal 6000331

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for use of existing garage for car repairs at [site address] , Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/03240/FULL6, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

In my above decision, I have used the description of development from the decision notice rather than the application form, as this more accurately describes the use applied for. During my site visit, this use was in operation. I have however deleted reference to “retrospective application”, as that is not a form of development. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the use on the living conditions of nearby residents and the residential character of the surrounding area, with particular regard to noise, disturbance and odours.

The appeal site (No 56) is a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling in a residential area, facing [address]. It is within a long and narrow plot near to its junction with [address], although its rear garden is shorter than most of those in the vicinity. The garage building subject of this appeal is to the rear of No 56. Its vehicular access faces a rear lane off [address], and it also has a door on the opposite elevation facing the rear of No 56 and adjoining dwellings.

Some other garages and outbuildings are nearby, although they appear to be in domestic use. No 7 Crossways, on the opposite side of the rear access lane to No 56, has recently been developed to provide additional dwellings.

The lawfulness of the existing garage car repairs use cannot be formally determined under this Section 78 appeal. However, the evidence before me, including neighbouring representations, indicates that the appellant has used No 56’s garage for car repairs for a number of years. This is a material consideration of significant weight.

As shown on the submitted plans, and as I observed during my site visit, the rear garage is not severed from the main dwelling of No 56. Within this building, I observed some small machinery such as wheel jacks. Its location, size and layout is such that only one car can be worked on at any given time within the plot of No

The garage also contains no pits or ramps, and I saw no evidence during my visit of paint spraying apparatus or office facilities, nor is such evidence before me. These characteristics limit the scale and extent of repair works undertaken, albeit this may not always be secondary to the primary residential use of No 56.

My visit was only a snapshot in time, and there is no specific list before me of existing equipment being used, or repair and serving activities that are taking place. However, the neighbouring representations indicate that the appellant appears to have generally undertaken the garage car repairs at No 56 in a sensible manner. There is no evidence before me of undue vehicular and pedestrian movements, or on-street parking generated by the use, and I also note that the Council’s Highways Officer has raised no technical objection.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer stated that no reasonable planning conditions could be imposed to address noise and odour impacts on neighbouring residents. However, the appellant has indicated acceptance of conditions to control hours of use, to prohibit severance of the garage from the main house of No 56, and prohibit air conditioning, ventilation or air-handling plant.

The above would likely, at certain times, necessitate opening of the garage doors during works, potentially impacting neighbouring living conditions. However, the above conditional controls will ensure that noise, disturbance and odour impacts would not be unreasonable. Such impacts would not occur during late evening periods, and quieter and more sensitive weekend and public holiday periods.

I therefore conclude that subject to appropriately worded planning conditions, the use subject of this appeal will not harm the living conditions of nearby residents and the residential character of the surrounding area in terms of noise, disturbance and odour. There is thus no conflict with Policies 37 and 87 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) and Policy D3 of the London Plan. Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, development to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants, ensuring they are not harmed by noise and disturbance, an unacceptable level of additional vehicular or pedestrian traffic, poor air quality, or other inconveniences.

I have found no harm to living conditions of nearby residents and to surrounding residential character, for reasons already set out above. However, a grant of planning permission ordinarily runs with the land, and another operator may not run the use in the same way as the appellant. This could potentially harm neighbouring living conditions and residential character. Granting planning permission on an unconstrained basis could therefore lead to conflict with the development plan, as such use may have an unacceptable impact in the above respects.

The Planning Policy Guidance states that planning permission usually runs with the land and it is rarely appropriate to provide otherwise. There may however be exceptional occasions where development that would not normally be permitted may be justified on planning grounds because of who would benefit from the permission.

As already set out above, the appellant appears to have generally undertaken the garage car repairs use sensibly at the site for a number of years and provides a personal service that is valued by many locally. I have found that the appellant's specific use of the garage building makes such use acceptable in planning terms. A personal planning permission is therefore necessary and justified in this case.

The evidence before me indicates that the garage building has been in situ in its current form for more than four years and therefore, as a structure, appears to be immune from planning enforcement action through the passage of time. Any issues regarding encroachment and property damage would be private civil matters that are beyond the scope of this appeal. Any presence of a restrictive covenant on the land does not prevent planning permission being applied, nor does it indicate conflict with development plan policy.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council and the appellant, having regard to the relevant tests of the National Planning Policy Framework. A condition (No 1) clarifying the approved plans is necessary, in the interests of certainty. As discussed in the other considerations section above, condition 2 is necessary to provide a personal planning permission for the appellant’s sole benefit. This condition also restricts severance of the garage building from No 56.

Conditions 3 and 4 are necessary in the interests of neighbouring living conditions and the residential character of the area. Within condition 4, I have removed the Council’s suggested reference to prior written consent, as it is superfluous.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.

The use hereby permitted relates to the following approved plans: Existing block plan, roof plan, ground floor and elevations ([name]. P/01r).

The use hereby permitted shall be carried out only by [name], as part of [name] residential occupation of the dwelling known as [site address] , Bromley [postcode] , and shall not be carried out by any other person. In the event that this use should cease, the garage building shall revert to its former use ancillary to the single residential use of [site address] .

The use hereby permitted shall only take place between 08:30am to 6pm on Mondays to Fridays, and between 08:30am to 1pm on Saturdays, and shall not operate on any Sunday or [name], or on [name] or [name].

No air conditioning, ventilation or air-handling plant shall be installed to service the use hereby permitted. ***End of Schedule***