Appeal 6000407

The appeal is dismissed.

Revised plans were submitted to the Council prior to its decision. The Council has considered these revised plans and so I have determined the appeal on these revised plans. I am satisfied that no party is prejudiced by my doing so.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located near the corner of [address] and [address], within a residential area predominantly characterised by two-storey semi-detached and detached houses featuring a mix of hipped and gabled roof designs. Properties in the area generally have plots which are narrow in width but deep in length providing houses with generous rear gardens. They are also generally set back from the road, following similar building lines, with low boundary treatments and street trees lining the pavement. The appeal site currently forms part of the rear garden of no 29 and is accessed via [address]. Due to its location and layout, the site contributes to the overall sense of spaciousness within the street scene. Collectively, these features create a consistent and pleasant visual character that makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness of the area.

The proposal seeks to subdivide the existing garden and construct a two-bedroom dwelling following the demolition of the existing garage and outbuildings. Although the appeal proposal would incorporate a gable roof design and retain some separation from the host property, its ridge and eaves height would be noticeably lower than those of the adjacent dwellings. As a result, the appeal proposal would create a visually incongruous feature within the street scene. In addition, due to its scale, the proposed dwelling would appear at odds with the neighbouring properties.

Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would occupy a substantial proportion of the site and sit close to the boundaries, resulting in a layout that is inconsistent with the prevailing character and sense of spaciousness in the street scene. Consequently, its scale, siting and reduced spacing would harm the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant contends that the existing outbuildings detract from the character and appearance of the street scene. However, as single storey structures of modest scale and sited within the rear garden, they have a minimal visual impact on the surrounding area.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the development would be contrary to Policies D3, D4 and H2 of the London Plan March 2021 (London Plan) and Policies 3, 4, 8 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (Local Plan). Taken together, these policies, among other things, seek to achieve high quality design that promotes local distinctiveness, and that new development should respect the scale and character of the street scene and the surrounding area.

Whilst the appeal proposal may provide an accommodation for the appellant and her family, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would only be occupied by the appellant or her family.

The Council do not raise objections to the proposal in terms of highway safety, parking provision, living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, the proposed dwelling and the host dwelling, drainage, biodiversity net gain, air quality and noise. However, the compliance with the development plan in these respects is a neutral factor.

The appeal proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Given the scale of development, I attach moderate weight to the identified harm.

The appellant suggests that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of land for housing, and the Council does not dispute this matter. In these circumstances, Paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that 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, having particular regard to a number of key policies including securing well-designed places.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. According to the Framework the creation of high quality and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve. It also seeks that developments are sympathetic to local character. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and Policies D3, D4 and H2 of the London Plan and Policies 3, 4, 8 and 37 of the Local Plan should be given significant weight in this appeal.

The proposal would make a positive contribution to housing supply within the existing urban environment. It would provide a self-build dwelling within a residential area and would make efficient use of the land. There would also be some social benefits, given the site’s proximity to schools. However, given that the development result in only one additional house, such benefits attract only limited weight.

In the particular circumstances of this case, I concluded that the adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area would conflict with policies of the Framework. The adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

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