Appeal 6000430

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] (No.30), with regard to outlook, noise and disturbance; and • whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions to future occupiers with regard to provision of internal living space, privacy and outlook from flat 2 and outlook and ventilation from flat 5.

The appeal site relates to a two-storey semi-detached property on [address]. The site benefits from parking to the front and a garden to the rear of the site. Surrounding development comprises detached and semi-detached properties, used as single dwellings and flats.

The scheme would involve the erection of a part single/two storey/three storey rear extension. It would incorporate a ‘stepped’ footprint, with a narrower depth on the side closest to No.30. At present, the rear elevations of the appeal property and No.30 align.

Despite the stepped footprint, the proximity of the appeal property to No.30, coupled with the proposed height and depth of the extensions would dominate the outlook from the rear elevation ground floor patio doors and first floor window at No.30, closest to the shared boundary. From the site visit and the evidence before me, it is evident that these windows serve a living area and a bedroom. The extensions would also be readily apparent from the patio garden area at No.30. Whilst there is a wall along the shared boundary, this is modest in size, in comparison to the proposed extension. Overall, the extensions would create an overbearing sense of enclosure, which would be harmful to the living conditions of occupiers at No.30.

Turning to noise and disturbance, the proposal would incorporate three balconies to serve the two flats on the first floor and the flat on the second floor. The proposed balconies would be of a size where several people could comfortably sit and congregate for periods of time. The associated noise and disturbance from this would be readily apparent from the single-family dwelling at No.30, given the proximity of the balconies to this property, particularly at times when they may have their windows open for ventilation or other reasons. I am not satisfied that the screens to the sides of the balconies would sufficiently mitigate any noise or disturbance.

The appellant suggests that noise and disturbance could be generated by the existing property which could accommodate a multi-generational family. Whilst some noise and disturbance from the use of the existing property and its garden may be apparent to neighbouring occupiers, the balconies would be in an elevated position, thereby additional noise and disturbance would be somewhat amplified.

The appellant has drawn my attention to various other approvals in the area, referring to the need for a consistent approach. The scheme at [address] (No.26) (Ref:21/00548/FULL1), was approved by the Council’s Planning Committee following an officer recommendation for refusal. At my site visit construction had commenced and there were balconies present in close proximity to the shared boundary. However, No.26 is a detached property and therefore there is a gap between it and neighbouring dwellings, and it is therefore not directly comparable to the scheme before me. Nonetheless, rather than providing justification for the development in question, if anything, its presence points to a need for such proposals to be carefully controlled if the living conditions of neighbours are to be safeguarded.

My attention is also drawn to approved schemes at 20 and [address] (No.20 and No.39). The extensions at No.20 however appear to be of a reduced depth, particularly at ground floor level closest to the shared boundary. The extensions also only comprise two balconies, therefore any noise and disturbance would likely be less than the noise and disturbance associated with three balconies. This property is also at the end of a terrace, sitting adjacent to the road on one side.

[name]. 39, the approved rear extensions sit relatively in line with the rear elevations of neighbouring properties on either side of the site, therefore any effect on outlook from the rear windows of neighbouring properties would not be directly comparable to the appeal scheme. [name] accept that the balconies on this scheme are similar to the appeal scheme before me in both size and nature, this in itself is not a reason to allow unacceptable development.

For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the referenced approved applications are directly comparable to the scheme before me. In any case, the fact that other extensions have been granted permission is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits and afforded reference to these schemes limited weight in favour of the development.

To conclude on the main issue, the scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of existing occupiers at No.30, with regard to outlook, noise and disturbance. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policies 4,9 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) in this regard. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality development which ensures the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Living conditions of future occupiers

Flats 2,3,4 and 5 would not comply with the best practice internal space standards, as set out in the London Plan Guidance- Housing Design Standards (2023). They would however comply with the minimum space standards, as set out in Policy D3 of the LP. Additionally, four of the flats would exceed these standards. As such, whilst not complaint with guidance, the scheme is policy complaint and would provide adequate internal living space in this regard.

Concerns are also raised regarding the combined kitchen and living facilities in each flat, which rely on small windows and glazed doors for ventilation. Referring to the Housing, Health and [name], relating to the Housing Act, the Council state that this would be insufficient for air quality and the integration of these spaces also raises concerns with safety, dampness, mould, extreme temperatures and overcrowding.

However, in my view, both the windows and doors to serve the kitchens/living areas could be opened and would be of sufficient size to ensure adequate ventilation. I have not been directed to any planning policy which prohibits patio doors being considered to provide ventilation or prohibits the integration of kitchen and living facilities. Furthermore, this is a relatively common set up in residential schemes. There is limited evidence before me to demonstrate that this set up would cause the issues referenced by the Council. I am satisfied that this aspect of the scheme is acceptable.

Flat 5 would be single aspect, however it would be provided with several rooflights. I am satisfied that the layout would provide adequate ventilation, privacy and daylight, with large patio doors and windows serving the kitchen/living area and one of the bedrooms. Whilst Policy D6 of the LP outlines how single aspect dwellings should normally be avoided, the word ‘should’ suggests some degree of flexibility to the decision maker. For the reasons set out, I am satisfied that the single aspect layout of this flat would be acceptable in this regard. Flat 2- privacy and outlook

The proposed window serving bedroom 2, within flat 2 would face onto the alleyway between the host property and No.26, and flank wall of No.26. The outlook from this window would therefore be dominated by this wall. However, given the use of the bedroom, it would likely only be used during certain hours of the day, with occupants using other rooms such as the living area/ kitchen at other times of the day. The other habitable rooms in the flat also offer acceptable levels of outlook. Given this, I do not consider the outlook from this bedroom to result in material harm to the living conditions of future occupiers.

The alleyway between the host property and No.26 also provides access to the bike sheds and communal garden area. Therefore, occupiers of flats [address] past the sole window serving bedroom 2 to access the bike sheds and communal garden. This could be at any time of the day, and also numerous times a day, given three flats would utilise it to access the communal area. The access path is relatively narrow, therefore anyone walking past the windows would be doing so at close quarters, enabling them to have clear views into this window. This would result in a lack of privacy afforded to the residents of flat 2. [name] accept that the bedroom would likely only be used during certain hours of the day, future occupiers should not have to close curtains/blinds to ensure privacy.

Whilst the two-bedroom units, including flat 2, may appeal to younger families, this does not justify the lack of privacy in bedroom 2. My attention has been drawn to the approved layout at No.39, whereby occupiers would have to walk pass a sole window serving bedroom 2 in flat 1 to access the bin and bike stores. [name] accept any effect to privacy would likely be similar to the appeal scheme, this is not a reason to allow unacceptable development. If anything, rather than providing justification for the development in question, its presence points to a need for such proposals to be carefully controlled if the privacy of future occupiers is to be ensured. Flat 5- outlook and ventilation

Bedroom 2 in flat 5 is served by two rooflights. This would restrict the outlook to views of the sky. Nonetheless, given the use of this room, it would likely only be used during certain hours of the day, with occupants using other rooms such as the living area/ kitchen at other times of the day. The other habitable rooms in the flat also offer acceptable levels of outlook to the rear of the property. Given this, I do not consider the outlook from this bedroom to result in material harm to the living conditions of future occupiers.

It is a reasonable expectation that the rooflight windows could be opened, similarly to a normal window, therefore providing the bedroom with adequate ventilation.

To conclude on the main issue, the scheme would provide acceptable internal living space. Flat 2 would provide an acceptable outlook and flat 5 would provide adequate outlook and ventilation. However, bedroom 2 in flat 2 would fail to provide adequate privacy to future occupiers. As a whole, the scheme would therefore be contrary to Policies 9 and 37 of the BLP and Policies D3 and D6 of the LP. Collectively, these policies seek to ensure high quality design and acceptable living conditions for future occupiers.

The site is situated approximately 160 metres from Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area. No concerns are however raised regarding the effect of the scheme on the conservation area. I see no reason to disagree with this.

Concerns are raised by the Council in its case officer report regarding the effect on privacy of neighbouring occupiers as a result of the proposed balconies. However, this is not referenced in the refusal reasons. Nonetheless, as can be seen from my findings above, this issue would not be determinative. I have therefore not considered it further.

I do not agree that the Council’s case officer report contradicts the decision notice. Whilst the report outlines how the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance, it outlines how the scheme would have an over dominant and intrusive visual impact, which would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No.30.

The appellant outlines how the current property is in need of refurbishment and modernisation, stating that there is evidence of subsidence which has caused structural damage. However, it has not been demonstrated that these improvements could not be achieved by a scheme with a different design that would avoid harm to neighbouring occupiers and future occupiers by way of lack of privacy. I have afforded limited weight to this consideration.

The scheme would ensure adequate daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. It would also have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It is not situated in a conservation area, does not contain any protected trees and is in a flood zone 1. These are however neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

Whilst various other properties in the area have been converted into flats, this does not justify harm. In any case, the schemes at 31, 33, 37, 45, 47 and [address] appear to pre-date the adoption of the BLP. The schemes are 41 and [address] sought permission for a single storey rear extension with decking and elevation alterations. Given the above, based on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that these schemes are directly comparable to the scheme before me.

The appellant has queried various conditions suggested by the Council in the event that the appeal was to be allowed. [name] am dismissing the appeal I have not considered these further.

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.

There is nothing before me to suggest that there are any policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance that provide a strong reason for refusing the development under paragraph 11d)(i). 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.

The scheme would provide housing in an accessible location. The dwellings may make use of sustainable resources and ensure energy efficiency. The scheme would also meet building regulations regarding accessibility and adaptability. It would incorporate additional planting and various measures such a gaps in fences for hedgehogs. Overall, given the modest scale of the development I attribute limited weight to these benefits.

Accordingly, I find that the adverse impacts arising from the development in terms of its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring and future occupiers 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.