Appeal 6000455

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the wider area; and, • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants with regard to privacy, outlook, light, and noise and disturbance.

The existing site accommodates a single storey dwelling and attached garage with first floor access, a detached garage unit, and front and rear gardens. Access is afforded through a small lane running to [site address] , which is shared with 1-8 [address].

Although the site occupies a backland position to the rear of development fronting [site address] , [address], The Weald, and [address], the proposal represents the redevelopment of an existing developed site. Whilst these roads offer variation in development pattern, they generally comprise detached or semi-detached dwellings of both single and two storeys. Between the existing appeal dwelling and the frontage terrace development sited on [site address] (1-5 [address]), sits a second terrace (6-8 [address]) also forming an element of backland development. Due to changes in ground level and the varying distances between the appeal site and surrounding roads, the visibility of the existing dwelling varies from the public realm.

The proposed development would introduce a two-storey terrace of four dwellings. Whilst the proposal would represent a change from the existing scale and typology of development on the site, I do not find any particular incongruity with existing development in the immediate area, which includes a variety of types, setting, and massing of residential buildings.

I recognise that the backland nature of the development means that it is not highly visible from surrounding streets, a point also noted by the Council, and I would agree that it would not be a prominent form of development within the local area, despite some limited intervisibility from the public realm. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not be at odds with the character and appearance of its surroundings and as such even if the development would be visible from either the public realm or by the private occupiers of adjacent dwellings, I do not find this to be harmful.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. I therefore do not find conflict with Policies 3, 4, and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan or D3 of the London Plan which, amongst other things, aim to ensure that development complements the scale, proportion, form and layout of adjacent buildings and areas and that residential backland development must not have an unacceptable impact on the character, appearance and context of an area.

The side boundary of the appeal site forms the rear boundary of 11 The Weald (No 11). Although the existing dwelling projects above this fence line, the massing limits the visual impact with the main bulk of the dwelling’s height set back from the boundary.

The two-storey mass of the proposed development would result in a significant erosion of the existing levels of outlook from the rear ground floor windows of No. 11 and would introduce a visually dominant built form in close proximity to the shared boundary. The proximity and predominantly blank two-storey side gable elevation would have an unacceptable impact on outlook as well as introducing overbearing conditions for neighbouring occupants to the detriment of the enjoyment of the principal patio and outdoor area.

The rear boundaries of Nos. 6, 7, and 8 [address] form the front boundary of the appeal site and sit slightly higher than the appeal dwelling. The proposed dwellings would be visible from the rear windows and gardens of these properties, but they would be set well back from the shared boundary. Given this setback and the depth of the gardens, any overshadowing would likely be limited to their far ends. As such, the impact on light and living conditions for the occupants would be acceptable.

I recognise that the proposal would result introduce the potential for direct views between the appeal properties and the rear elevations of Nos 6, 7 & 8, through first floor windows on the front elevation. However, there would be a substantial separation distance between the two sets of windows which would mitigate against any unacceptable impact on existing or future living conditions. I do not therefore find that the relationship with the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

I observed the position of 1-5 [address] (Nos 1-5) to be further away from the proposed dwellings than Nos 6,7 & 8 and largely obscured by these properties. Whilst the proposal would be visible, any impact on outlook and privacy for the occupiers of these properties would be limited due to distance and position of existing development.

The Council has highlighted that the proposed development would be more prominent than the existing dwelling to the occupants of properties along [address] but has not concluded that there would an unacceptable effect to the living conditions of the occupants of these dwellings. Nevertheless, a third party representation has raised concerns that the proposed development would result in an overbearing impact to the occupants of dwellings within [address]. From the evidence before me, I understand the dwellings affected would be No 6 and [address] (No 6, No 7) given the siting of the proposed development.

The existing dwelling abuts the boundary shared with No 6. and topographical conditions mean that the appeal site is located on higher ground than the dwellings within [address], including Nos 6 and 7. Although the proposal would result in the addition of a two-storey massing within close proximity to the rear boundaries of Nos 6 and 7, with the majority being sited along the boundary of No 6, this would be sited to the rear end of their gardens with a considerable separation distance. Furthermore, the existing trees and shrubs towards the end of the rear gardens of No 6 and 7 would effectively screen the proposed development and assist in mitigating any adverse effects.

Vehicles accessing the four dwellings would pass along the access lane that runs adjacent to the rear garden boundaries of [address] and 5 and 8 [address], with it contended that this could result in additional noise and disturbance to the occupants of these dwellings. However, with the access lane already serving the appeal site, 6-8 [address] and 9 vehicular garages, I am not persuaded that the impact of vehicular movements for 3 additional dwellings would result in any significant adverse impact. In this regard I accept the conclusions of the submitted evidence that overall levels of predicted vehicular movements would remain within acceptable parameters.

For the reasons set out, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact to the living conditions of adjacent occupants with particular regard to those of [address] of an overbearing impact. I therefore find conflict with Policies 3 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (the Local Plan) and D3 of the London Plan (LP), which, amongst other things, aim to ensure that development respects the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings. However, I do conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. In this respect, I therefore find no conflict with policies 3 and 37 of the Local Plan and D3 of the LP which, amongst other things, aims to ensure that development does not result in harm to the amenity of existing occupiers through disturbance from additional traffic.

The appellant has not submitted a [name], although I am mindful that Policy D12(A) of the London Plan states that for a development of this type (non-major), one is not required. Nevertheless, even allowing for the Policy stating that applications should demonstrate criteria to ensure that its overarching objectives are met, I am satisfied in the event that this appeal was to be allowed, that this is a matter which could be secured through a suitably worded condition.

The development would result in economic benefits arising from collection of the [name] as well as the provision of construction jobs and economic investment and support for local shops and services, as well as environmental benefits from the [name] uplift. However, these benefits would overall be limited given the modest scale of the proposed development and would therefore attract only limited weight.

The appellant notes that benefit would arise due to the size of the properties which would create affordable homes for families and first time buyers compared to larger homes. However, there is no evidence before me that these homes would be affordable as defined within the Framework, nor has affordable housing, and the associated mechanisms which would secure it, been applied for. I do not therefore attach any significant weight to the contention that the proposal would meet an identified need for the provision of affordable housing.

My attention has also been drawn to the Framework in that it notes that small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area as they are often built out quickly. Whilst this may be the case, the development is modest in its contribution to the housing supply and as such the speed of the delivery of the proposed dwellings would attract only limited weight.

The appellant also points out that the framework notes that development on brownfield sites (previously developed land) should only be refused if substantial harm arises. However, as the appeal site is located within a built up area, I find that it would not accord with the definition of previously developed land as set out within Annexe 2.

The Framework requires at paragraph 11 d) that policies which are most important for determining the application are regarded as out-of-date (as identified at Footnote 8) where a Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or where the [name] (HDT) indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years. In such an instance, paragraph 11 d) ii) of the Framework states 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 Council’s published [name] demonstrates a 3.99-year supply for the period 2021/22 to 2025/26. However, a revised figure of 2.4 years has been drawn to my attention as was concluded in an October 2024 appeal decision (Ref: APP/G5180/W/24/3340223) against the new London Plan target. Given that the Council has referenced this figure and it has not been contested, I have proceeded on this basis. Furthermore, I note that the most recent [name] results published in 2024 indicate a rate of housing delivery below the 75% threshold and below the 20% buffer threshold. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies under paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.

The proposal does not affect any areas or assets of particular importance that would preclude the application of the presumption. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, requiring permission to be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes.

Given the extent of the shortfall in both the supply of housing sites and delivery of housing, the delivery of three additional dwellings would undoubtedly make a moderate positive contribution towards meeting the housing need. However, the overall contribution would be limited given the modest quantum of development. Nevertheless, I have identified that the development would also provide some limited social and economic benefits both during and post construction which would also attract some limited weight in support of the proposal.

In this instance, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of 11 The Weald. These effects would be significant and enduring, and I therefore afford them substantial weight. I conclude that the benefits of the proposed development would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the identified harm and would not accord with the overarching policy objectives of the Framework, including directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, and securing well-designed places

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations, including the approach of the framework. On this basis, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.