Appeal 6000332

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policies, the provisions of the Framework and the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal site is a piece of land between and to the rear of 352 and 354 [site address] . The site contains the remnants of a building, which was previously used as a builder’s yard, before being partially demolished in 2014/2015. Part of the site also previously formed part of neighbouring rear gardens. Access to the site is between 346 and 354 [site address] . On the land adjacent to the rear of the site, there are a number of caravans.

The site is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is set amongst a predominantly loose knit collection of detached and terraced dwellings, and the occasional commercial premises. The wider surrounding area is rural in character, comprising of open fields.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Certain forms of development are, however, not inappropriate. Two exceptions have been put forward by the appellant. I have considered these below. Paragraph 154(g)

One such exception listed at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework is the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Policy 49 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (the BLP) contains similar exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt; however, its wording is rooted in the previous version of the Framework. One listed exception is the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), provided that the development would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

The specific criterion which allows for the redevelopment of previously developed land in Policy 49 of the BLP is therefore not entirely consistent with paragraph 154(g) as it imposes more stringent tests for the re-development of previously developed land. The requirements of Policy 49 are therefore inconsistent with the Framework in this regard. As such, I have afforded limited weight to this policy and assessed the proposal principally against the most up to date policy and wording of the Framework.

Previously developed land is described by the Framework as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). It also includes land comprising large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed. Previously developed land excludes: land in built-up areas such as residential gardens and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape, amongst other things.

As outlined, the site contains the remnants of a building which was previously lawfully used as a builder’s yard, after planning permission was granted in 1987 (Ref: 87/02155/FUL). Although this building has been partly demolished, low walls and substantial hardstanding remain, and it was evident from my site visit that a structure formerly occupied the site. Given this, I do not consider that the remains of the structure have blended into the landscape.

Whilst part of the site was formerly part of neighbouring rear gardens, residential gardens are only excluded from being considered previously developed land if they are in a built-up area. However, the term ‘built-up area’ is not defined by the Framework and the question of whether a residential garden falls within or outside a built-up area for this purpose is a matter of planning judgement.

The site occupies land between [site address] and Westerham, which the Council consider to be neighbouring towns for the purposes of considering grey belt. The area surrounding the site is very clearly separate from the two towns. Based on the evidence before me and my experiences at the site visit, the surrounding area is generally defined by a somewhat sporadic ribbon of development, together with the absence of day-to-day facilities apart from the public house and set amongst fields and open countryside.

I therefore consider that the appeal site is not within a built-up area with regard to the definition of previously developed land in the Framework. The site therefore comprises previously developed land. Consequently, whether the development causes substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt will determine its conformity with the exception at Paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt, with openness being capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

The proposed dwelling would be single storey in height, with a pitched roof. It would occupy a similar footprint to the remains of the building it would replace; however, its bulk and massing would be significantly greater. Given this, it would reduce openness in spatial terms.

In visual terms, boundary treatment along [site address] would provide a degree of screening from the road. Nonetheless, there would still be glimpses of the proposed dwelling from the road and it would be visible from the rear gardens of 346 to 362 [site address] . The tree coverage to the rear of the site would provide screening, limiting views of the development from beyond the rear of the site. Therefore, there would be some harm to visual openness, however this would be relatively limited for the reasons outlined.

Overall, the proposed development would cause a moderate degree of harm to Green Belt openness. This harm would not amount to substantial harm. This conclusion was similarly reached in the previous appeal decision for an almost identical scheme which was assessed against a previous version of the Framework where under paragraph 154(g) of the Framework, required development to not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development (Ref: APP/G5180/W/24/3341148).

I therefore find that the proposal would fall within the exception set out under paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. Accordingly, the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Insofar as they are consistent with the Framework, I also find no conflict with Policy 49 of the BLP or Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) (the LP), which collectively seek, amongst other things, to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The Council have referenced Policy 64 of the BLP in their refusal reason. This relates to agricultural dwellings. The scheme does not seek planning permission for an agricultural dwelling. I do not consider this policy to be relevant.

[name] have concluded that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, I do not need to consider other considerations and whether these amount to very special circumstances. Nor do I need to consider the case under the Grey Belt exception of the Framework as put to me by the appellant, given I have found the proposal would comply with the exception as described above.

The appeal site is set amongst a predominantly loose knit collection of detached and terraced dwellings of different sizes and styles, and the occasional commercial premises. The buildings and spaces between them contribute to a varied street scene and allow views across the open land beyond, including the trees against the skyline. Those views reinforce the sense that the sporadic and predominantly ribbon form of development along [site address] is embedded within a rural landscape.

On my site visit there were various small items, such as building materials, mostly stacked around the edges of the land in low height and sparsely distributed piles. These had little visual effect on the appeal site, which is mostly mown grass, and were screened in street level views.

The terraces to the north and south of the appeal site are set relatively close to the road. The buildings beyond them tend to have wide frontages to the road. [name] do accept that there are some buildings which do not front the road, these are in the minority and most buildings in the area face the road.

To contrast, the proposed dwelling would be set to the rear of the terraces with a very narrow frontage to the road. Its siting and positioning to the rear of existing dwellings would be at odds with the established predominately frontage pattern of development in the area. It would also consolidate built form in the row, therefore harmfully eroding the loose knit pattern of buildings in the street scene.

Although relatively modest in scale, the proposed dwelling’s bulk and massing would be significantly greater than the remains of the former building which it would replace. Its increased size would have the effect of obstructing views across the appeal site of the open land to the west, including the trees against the skyline.

Whilst the proposed scale of the dwelling may be similar to the former building on site, this building was approved in 1987, under a different local plan context. It was also not a residential property and is therefore not directly comparable to the scheme before me. I have afforded this consideration limited weight in favour of the appeal.

For the reasons outlined above, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the BLP and Policies D3 and D4 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that respects the local character of an area.

I do not find any conflict with Policy 73 of the BLP or Policy G7 of the LP. Whilst views of the protected trees would be somewhat obstructed, the evidence before me indicates that they would be retained.

On the evidence before me, dismissing this appeal could lead to the intended future occupiers of the proposed dwelling being unable to find a suitable home for retirement accommodation, which would engage the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This includes having due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic (which includes age), and persons who do not.

Notwithstanding this, there is no evidence to demonstrate that a similar property could not be developed elsewhere in Bromley, where it would not harm the character and appearance of the area. In having due regard to the PSED, the adverse effects of dismissing this appeal on persons with protected characteristics would, on the basis of the evidence before me, be proportionate in this instance when balanced against the well-established and legitimate planning purposes of national and local planning policies.

The evidence in front of me suggests that the appellants have historical roots and family connections in Bromley. [name] have given the appellant’s personal circumstances careful consideration, I am mindful of the advice contained in Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph 008 [name] 21b-008-20140306) that in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. It is also probable that the proposed development would remain long after the current personal circumstances cease to be material. For these reasons, I therefore find that this factor is not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The evidence indicates that the proposed development would cause no harm to highway safety or the living conditions of nearby occupiers. It would also meet the relevant internal space standards. However, an absence of harm in these respects would be requirements of any well-designed scheme and they do not carry positive weight in favour of the appeal proposal. At present the site may have access to water and electricity, however this is a neutral consideration.

The evidence before me outlines how the Council can only demonstrate a 2.4-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This is a significant shortfall. In these circumstances paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. The evidence also suggests that Bromley has the largest elderly population of any London borough.

Although the Green Belt is one of the policies which protect areas or assets of particular importance, as listed in footnote 7 to Framework paragraph 11d(i), the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore, this does not provide a clear reason for refusing the proposed development and it falls to be considered against the test in paragraph 11d(ii) of the Framework. Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11d(ii) applies such that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Even if the proposal met the Council’s policy definition of Specialist and [name], and an approval was conditioned to control occupancy to over 55’s, the proposed one-bedroomed bungalow, would make only a very small contribution to housing supply and addressing any acute shortage of Specialist and [name].

Local facilities may potentially be accessed via public transport from nearby bus stops, however I note the Council has raised concerns regarding the accessibility of the site with regard to sustainable modes of transport. Furthermore, there is limited evidence before me to show how frequent the buses are, or what routes they cover. Additionally, on my site visit it was clear that the footpath is narrow in certain parts, which may create issues, particularly for those with any mobility issues, in walking or cycling to the bus stops or nearby facilities.

The scheme would utilise brownfield land, however this benefit is tempered by the resultant harm to the character and appearance of the area as a result of the scheme. The appellant has suggested that it would be built to Passivhaus plus specifications, utilising efficient and sustainable construction methods. However, there is limited information regarding such specifications or measures before me and in any case, this would not address the issues associated with the schemes effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The scheme would incorporate ecological enhancements, potentially improving the biodiversity of the site. However, there is limited information regarding this before me and therefore I have afforded this benefit limited weight. In any case, given the small scale of the development any enhancements would be limited. The scheme may also ‘tidy-up’ the existing site, however it would arguably be reasonably expected that the existing site would be kept tidy. This is therefore a neutral consideration.

Overall, for the reasons outlined above, I afford these considerations and benefits limited weight in favour of the appeal. I therefore find that the adverse impacts arising from the development in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited weight attributed to the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in these circumstances.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.