Appeal 6000363

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of amenity space, and its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is in a residential area, comprising disused garages, hardstanding and an overgrown part of the outside space for the residential property on the corner of [address] and [address], with the grounds of flats to the rear. There is a mix of types and styles of dwellings in the wider area, but two storey dwellings set well back from the road within large plots predominate along [address]. Although the appeal site and land opposite are largely enclosed by boundary fences and have a verdant appearance, the houses facing the road have predominantly open frontages.

The proposal is to demolish the garages and construct a pair of semi-detached two storey houses fronting [address]. This would result in the removal of existing overgrown space.

Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) emphasises the qualitative aspects of housing development. It requires the provision of at least 7sqm private outdoor space for each dwelling which should be at least 1.5m deep and wide. This should be useable and have a balance of openness and protection, appropriate for its outlook and orientation. The London Plan Guidance Housing [name] 2023 recognise the importance of providing high quality outside spaces. Policy 4 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP) seeks the provision of sufficient external, private amenity space that is accessible and practical.

The proposed houses would be set back from the road close to the rear boundary, creating sizeable front and side gardens and small rear patios, with a good-sized outdoor space for the existing corner property retained. Directly accessible from the living rooms, the proposed patios would exceed the amount of private outdoor space required by Policy D6 of the LP. Many outdoor spaces for homes in London comprise balconies close to each other and fronting roads. Nonetheless, due to their north facing aspect, limited depth, and position between the new building and rear boundary enclosures, the new patios would be very enclosed, overshadowed, poor quality external spaces, impractical for use by future residents.

The proposed side and south facing front gardens would lie close to the relatively quiet road and also be accessible from the main living areas. It is suggested that high, dense boundary landscaping would screen these outdoor areas, providing privacy and enabling them to be used as practical, secure and attractive outside spaces, including for planting, seating and children’s play. Nevertheless, the introduction of roadside boundary hedges would be at odds with the largely open frontages of properties on [address].

The appellant is willing to accept a condition that would secure the details of durable and on-going maintenance of the landscaping. However, future occupants may wish to manage the garden in a different way, and the landscaping could become damaged or diseased and may only provide screening in spring and summer months. As such, even if dense boundary planting was acceptable, this may not provide privacy year-round or in the long term. Nonetheless, irrespective of any planting, as most of the garden areas would lie beside the dwelling access paths with their associated comings and goings, they would not provide sufficiently private areas of amenity space.

Further, as the largest outdoor spaces would be forward of the proposed building, the scheme could result in the introduction of a high mutual boundary fence and domestic paraphernalia such as garden furniture, washing lines and children’s play equipment in front of the new houses. Regardless of whether boundary planting would be appropriate, this may not always provide sufficient screening of such features which would thus appear alien compared to the uncluttered, open front gardens prevalent along the road.

There is no dispute that the design and appearance of the proposed dwellings would be appropriate in this locality. Since the new building would occupy around half the site and be positioned close to the rear boundary, the appeal scheme would be very different to the predominantly large plots with substantial rear gardens which prevail on [address]. This arrangement would not be ideal but as the new houses would follow a similar building line to other properties in the street, as a whole the proposed development would not appear cramped or incongruous, particularly in views from the road.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of amenity space, and harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the LP and Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the BLP. Together, these require developments to respect local character, positively respond to local distinctiveness and provide sufficient practical private amenity space, amongst other things.

Policy D4 of the LP relates to processes and actions required to deliver good design. As it does not directly link to the harm identified, I find no specific conflict with Policy D4 in reaching my conclusion.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including parking, highway safety, internal accommodation standards, energy efficiency, fire safety, flood risk and neighbouring living conditions. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the scheme.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). It refers to a 3.99 year supply equating to 3,245 units in the period 2021/22 to 2025/26. However, a subsequent appeal decision in October 20241 concluded that the Council had a 2.4 year supply equating to 2,628 dwellings when taking account of the London Plan target and factoring in delivery shortfalls since 2019/20. The appellant refers to the low level of recent starts on major residential schemes in London. [name] result for 2023 confirms that housing delivery over the past three years has fallen below the 75% referred to in the Framework. As there is a shortfall in housing provision, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged.

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework confirms that in such circumstances, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts 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 key policies including directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places.

The Framework seeks to boost housing supply and highlights the important contribution small sites can make. The proposal would make a modest contribution of two homes to the supply of housing, making better use of underutilised land in an established residential area within a reasonable walking distance of shops, services and public transport at [name]. It would contribute towards Bromley’s housing supply, making a modest difference to addressing the shortfall, and therefore I attribute moderate weight to this benefit.

The part of the site containing the garages and hardstanding appears to be previously developed land, but most of the site is garden land within a built-up area which is excluded from the definition of previously developed land in the Framework. This limits the weight I can attribute to this matter.

In contrast, the proposal would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers and harm the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with the Framework where it requires developments to provide a high standard of amenity for future users and be sympathetic to local character. The proposal would also be contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the LP and Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the BLP. These matters carry significant weight against the scheme. Indeed, the 1 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/W/24/3340223 adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan 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 should be dismissed.