Appeal 6000419

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s case file includes drawing no. 07 [name], showing the ‘Proposed rear elevation (Main Building)’. An identical drawing number is included within the appeal submission but omits this elevation. In addition, no elevation drawing showing the first floor rear (east facing) elevation of the proposed two storey addition was submitted with either the application or the appeal documentation. As these elevations have not been formally submitted, I cannot take them into account. In the absence of these drawings, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans properly before me.

One of the Council’s reasons for refusal relates to insufficient information concerning the impact of the development on a tree adjacent to the site which is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). An Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] has been submitted as part of this appeal which I am comfortable to accept as not creating procedural unfairness or prejudice to any party. While the Council confirm this addresses the issue raised in the refusal ground, it remains concerned that the development could result in pressure to prune or remove the tree. I deal with this in the relevant main issue below.

In appeal submissions the appellant proposes the development could proceed on a car-free basis, with the parking space removed and vehicular access permanently prevented. The Council raises no objection in principle, but notes the absence of revised drawings or specifications. Appeals should not be used to substantially amend and/or evolve a proposal. In the absence of revised details, I have therefore assessed the development as shown on the submitted plans.

The main issues are: a) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the conservation area including its effect on a protected tree. b) Whether the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers, with particular regard to the internal floor area, outlook and ventilation of the internal accommodation.

The appeal site is within the Chislehurst Conservation Area (CCA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

This part of the CCA is characterised by a historic [address] core of closely spaced frontage buildings interspersed with Victorian and early twentieth-century development. Traditional materials and glimpsed views of greenery and rear garden land contribute to a verdant, semi-rural townscape in which the relationship between the [address] frontage and more open land behind is an important component of its character.

The appeal site comprises a three‐storey Victorian end‐of‐terrace building (No.65) on the west side of the [address], returning to [address]. It contains a ground‐floor retail unit with residential accommodation above, all of which is presently vacant. Entrances are taken from the [address], where the frontage sits slightly above the footway behind a shallow stepped plinth.

To the rear, the building’s vacant condition is evident in the boarded windows and areas of broken or missing brickwork. Extensive hardstanding opens the site to view and accommodates a modest detached single‐storey, pitched‐roof building, partly clad in corrugated metal, which has a utilitarian appearance, is likely of post‐war origin, and is in use as an MOT garage. The hardstanding extends to the site’s western boundary, defined by a brick wall adjoining a pedestrian and vehicular route serving a neighbouring foodstore. A mature Plane tree, of notable size and protected by a TPO, stands immediately beyond this boundary and overhangs part of the site.

In views from [address], the site’s hardstanding and general condition give it a functional character that makes limited positive contribution to the CCA. The adjoining development to the north of the site displays a similarly understated character, comprising a late‐20th‐century foodstore and car park and assorted single‐storey additions to the adjoining terrace properties. Collectively, these elements form a relatively modest townscape setting within this part of the CCA, with the nearby mature TPO tree providing a positive visual feature, softening the scene and introducing (when in leaf) a degree of verdant relief. The southern side of [address] has a more complete and coherent two‐storey frontage, with façades broadly respecting the scale and historic character of the [address], including a historic grain store building.

As viewed from the [address], No.65 forms part of the established historic frontage and contributes positively to its significance. From this location views across the site reveal the hardstandings and MOT building, with the mature TPO tree providing a strong natural backdrop that enhances the visual quality of this part of the Conservation Area.

The proposed development would extend across almost the full depth of the plot, comprising a two-storey pitched-roof addition stepping down to a substantial single-storey flat-roofed section before rising to a further two-storey element at the rear. Together these would create a substantial built form whose overall scale and depth would exceed that of the host building. The extension would not appear subservient and would be visually dominant, at odds with the modest rear development characteristic of this part of the CCA.

The irregular composition, formed of differently scaled and stepped elements, would not read as a coherent or contextual addition. The extensive flat‐roofed section would introduce a broad horizontal plane that is untypical of the predominantly pitched‐roofed frontage development contributing to the area’s historic character. At this scale, it would sit awkwardly within the street scene and relate poorly to the more traditional two‐storey buildings opposite. The proposed fenestration pattern, with its repeated openings and lack of hierarchy or proportional rhythm, would not reflect the established arrangement of the Victorian terrace or other nearby buildings. Overall, the scale, form and detailing of the extension would appear visually assertive and poorly integrated, failing to respond positively to the established character and appearance of the CCA.

I have had regard to the absence of two elevations, which limits assessment of certain detailed views. However, the harm I identify arises principally from the overall scale, depth, massing and composition evident in the submitted plans. The missing elevations do not alter my conclusion.

The western end of the development would incorporate a first floor supported on two columns, which the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] states would be the only part of the scheme to extend into the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the neighbouring protected tree. The RPA is not an absolute exclusion area. With regard to the principles of BS 5837:2012 and the limited scale of the incursion (stated by the appellant to be less than 1% of the total RPA), and subject to the precautionary construction techniques proposed, including hand excavation, I am satisfied the foundation works should not materially harm the tree’s rooting environment or its long‐term health and stability.

However, a first-floor bedroom and bathroom window would fall within the tree’s crown spread. Substantial pruning would be required to provide clearance. Even then, the bedroom would likely remain poorly lit, creating pressure for further reductions. Such pruning would significantly diminish the size and form of the tree and thereby its contribution to the character and appearance of the CCA and could increase pressure for its eventual removal.

The submitted drawings include provision for ramped access to the existing retail unit (No. 65) within the raised stepped plinth behind the pavement. [name] have noted the representation from a third party who identifies as a wheelchair user and I have had regard to the importance of inclusive access to town centre uses, the projection and utilitarian form of the ramp would appear visually prominent and would detract from the proportions and detailing of the frontage, failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CCA. As this matter was not cited in the Council’s reasons for refusal and, given my findings on the main issues, it is not determinative.

For the reasons given, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area and would result in less than substantial harm to its significance. It would therefore conflict with Policies 37, 41, 43 and 73 of the Bromley Local Plan and Policies D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan, which together seek, among other things, to ensure that development responds positively to its surroundings in terms of form, scale and massing, conserves and enhances heritage assets, and safeguards trees of visual amenity value. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that less than substantial harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I return to this below.

The Nationally Described Space Standards 2015 (NDSS) set out minimum internal space requirements for residential accommodation. These underpin Policy D6 of the London Plan (LP) and Policy 4 of the Bromley Local Plan (BLP) both of which require all new residential development to achieve appropriate minimum space standards. The Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016) ([name]) provides detailed guidance on the implementation of the LP’s housing quality policies, including benchmarks for private outdoor amenity space.

[name] and B would be created by subdividing and extending the residential accommodation above the existing retail unit, including conversion and extension of the loft space. The plans show two one-bedroom, two-person units, each containing a living/kitchen area and a separate room labelled ‘office’. The Council considers this room could function as an additional single bedroom, increasing the minimum gross internal floor area (GIA) requirement from 50 sqm to 61 sqm.

The size and domestic layout of the ‘office’ indicate it could readily function as a single bedroom. In applying the development plan and the NDSS, I must consider how the accommodation would operate in practice rather than rely on the room labels shown on the drawings. On that basis, I agree with the Council that the potential for increased occupancy engages the higher 61 sqm standard, with the result that [name], at 54 sqm, would fall below the required minimum and be substandard.

While the appellant states [name] has a floor area of 71 sqm, the Council is unable to corroborate this, noting the absence of section drawings to demonstrate the headroom within the loft space meets the required minimum standard. The LP specifies a minimum ceiling height of 2.3 m for at least 75% of the GIA, with 2.5 m strongly encouraged to address London’s particular ‘heat‐island’ conditions so as to secure adequate light, ventilation and a satisfactory sense of space. The NDSS also specifies a headroom of less than 1.5 m is not counted within the GIA unless used for storage. [name] note the appellant’s stated GIA, the lack of section plans or measured evidence confirming the ceiling height above the floorspace within the loft (which forms a significant proportion of [name]) means I cannot be satisfied the proposal complies with the requirements of the development plan or the NDSS.

[name] is proposed as a new one-bedroom, two-person unit accessed from below the flat through an undercroft. The appellant states it would have a GIA of 60 sqm, contrasting with the Council’s calculation of 46 sqm, which excludes the stairs. In my view, it is not unreasonable to include the lobby and stairwell leading to the first floor within the GIA of [name], as they are wholly contained within the unit and located behind its main entrance door. Accounting for this, I am satisfied the GIA of [name] would exceed the 50 sqm minimum set by the NDSS.

The Housing SPG provides a benchmark of 5 sqm of private outdoor space for 1–2 person dwellings, with an additional 1 sqm per further occupant, and recognises that in constrained circumstances alternative provision, such as additional internal space, may exceptionally be considered. In this case, [name] and B provide no private outdoor space. While some flexibility may arise in conversion schemes, neither flat meets minimum internal standards and there is no scope for compensatory provision. The lack of private amenity space therefore weighs against the proposal. [name], as a new unit, would also provide no private outdoor space, representing a clearer policy departure and weighing more significantly against the scheme.

The Council considers the layout of [name] would provide inadequate outlook from both the bedroom and the living/dining area, the latter benefiting from a single window serving the adjacent kitchen area and facing east over the flat roof and towards the rear of No. 65. In my view, the bedroom would achieve a reasonable outlook which, while partly across the foodstore car park, would also extend along [address]. The outlook from the living/dining area, however, would be markedly more constrained, with a limited and enclosed aspect. This would detract from the quality of the living environment.

The undercroft access to [name], while indirect, would be functional and would not in itself result in unacceptable living conditions.

Policy 4 of the Bromley Local Plan requires 90% of new housing to meet the optional Building Regulations requirement M4(2) for accessible and adaptable dwellings. In respect of [name] and B, which involve the conversion of an existing building, the constraints of the structure and the absence of a lift mean achieving step‐free access would necessitate significant structural intervention. In these circumstances, strict compliance with M4(2) would not be reasonably practicable, and the resulting conflict with the policy carries limited weight. However, for [name] there is little substantive evidence before me to demonstrate how the dwelling would achieve M4(2) compliance or to justify any departure from that requirement. The appellant’s suggestion that this matter can be addressed under the Building Regulations does not overcome the planning policy requirement. In the absence of clear evidence, I cannot be satisfied the proposal would provide accessible and adaptable accommodation or comply with Policy 4 of the BLP. This weighs moderately against the proposal.

Taken together, the shortfall against the NDSS for [name], the unresolved uncertainty regarding the usable floorspace and headroom within [name], the absence of private outdoor space for all three units, the constrained outlook from the principal living space of [name], and the lack of clear evidence demonstrating M4(2) compliance for the new-build unit, indicate the proposal would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation and would conflict with the development plan. These matters weigh significantly against the proposal.

The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the CCA. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, that harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In undertaking that exercise, and in applying the statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the 1990 Act, I have given great weight to the conservation of the designated heritage asset.

The public benefits include the delivery of three additional dwellings in an accessible town centre location, to which I give moderate weight given the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five‐year supply of deliverable housing sites. The provision of a new retail unit, together with the re‐use and extension of the existing unit and upper floors, would also support the vitality and viability of the [address]. The removal of the existing MOT use and redevelopment of the rear hardstanding would replace features of limited townscape value and secure a more efficient use of the site.

Weighing these benefits against the identified less than substantial harm, to which I have given great weight, I conclude that the public benefits would not outweigh that harm. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and the Framework’s heritage policies.

As the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. the presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is of relevance. However, footnote 7 identifies designated heritage assets as assets of particular importance. As the appeal site lies within the CCA, the Framework’s heritage policies provide a strong reason for refusing the development under paragraph 11(d)(i). The presumption in favour of sustainable development is not therefore engaged.

The Council raised concerns regarding the adequacy of cycle parking and refuse arrangements and the safety of manoeuvring into and out of the undercroft parking space onto the adjoining highway, having regard to Policies T5 and T6 of the London Plan and Policies 4, 30, 32 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan. As set out above, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans, which retain the parking space. In that context, the limited manoeuvring space and relationship between the parking bay, access and adjoining storage areas give rise to concerns regarding safe vehicle movements and the practicality and convenience of accessing the cycle and refuse stores. Nevertheless, given my findings on the main issues, it is not necessary for me to reach a definitive conclusion on these matters, as they would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. It would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area that would not be outweighed by public benefits, and it would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers. Although the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the application of the Framework’s policies relating to designated heritage assets provides a strong reason for refusal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.