Appeal 6000475

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outlook and the provision of internal living space.

The appeal site is a rectangular shaped parcel of undeveloped land that previously formed part of the garden to [address]. Its frontage to [site address] consists of a concrete wall that is located behind a grass verge containing [address] trees.

Surrounding properties generally consist of detached or semi-detached bungalows and 2-storey dwellings of a similar age and style, incorporating pitched roofs that have an open frontage to the highway with many containing low boundary walls and fences, as well as landscaping and off-street parking. There is a noticeable harmony to these characteristics between the properties.

The site marks the start of a row of undeveloped gardens backing onto [site address] , which collectively present an open space that is broadly devoid of development except for the occasional detached domestic garage or low key outbuilding.

This space, along with the tree lined grass verges and the rear gardens of the houses that run perpendicular to this section of [site address] , contribute to the area having a pleasant, spacious and verdant character and appearance. The proximity of [site address] to the open countryside is emphasised by the views of rising fields between the houses that face Gates Green Road.

The appeal scheme would introduce a 2 storey building, which would display itself as single storey in height from [site address] , with a flat roof design and understated design and appearance. Its positioning behind a new high front boundary fence and sliding gate would reduce the building’s visual impact in the street scene. When the sliding gate would be open, the presence of vehicles on the driveway, a front door and porthole window to the building’s front elevation as well as associated domestic paraphernalia would show that it is a self-contained dwelling. Moreover, comings and goings involving both pedestrian and vehicular movements that would predominantly require the opening of the sliding gates in connection with a 2 bedroom 4 person dwelling would be greater than if it were a domestic garage.

Therefore, and notwithstanding the building’s small size, low height and positioning behind high boundary treatment, it would read as a self-contained dwelling, which would contrast sharply with the surrounding larger and open frontage properties. Furthermore, the proposed development would encroach residential development into the undeveloped space along this section of [site address] , thereby eroding its established open and spacious character.

16A [site address] , which adjoins the appeal site, is a bungalow and noticeably smaller than the surrounding dwellings. However, I observed that it is not representative of the area’s prevailing character and appearance.

Reference has been made to a lapsed planning permission1 for a double garage in support of the proposal in that it established the acceptability of a built structure on the appeal site. Nevertheless, as detailed above, a domestic garage building would not hold the same characteristics as the proposal before me and therefore does not represent a direct comparison. I have considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits.

Previous appeal decisions2 relating to the erection of a dwelling on the site have addressed concerns regarding setting an undesirable precedent. In the most recent of these appeals, the Inspector concluded that concern surrounding an approval that could be used in support of similar schemes was not a generalised fear of precedent, but a realistic and specific concern. They added that if repeated within the other rear gardens it would further erode the open character of the south-west side of [site address] . Based on the evidence before me and from my own observations on site, I find no reason to disagree with the Inspector’s previous conclusion on this matter.

18 [site address] is close to the appeal site and where the road turns 90 degrees. I saw this consisted of a pair of modern semi-detached dwellings. As there was previously a dwelling on the site, a comparison to the appeal scheme is of limited relevance in this instance. 1 Planning Application Ref: 17/04417/FULL1 2 Planning Appeal Refs: APP/G5180/A/07/2050584, APP/G5180/A/13/2191979 & APP/G5180/W/15/3135967

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policies 4 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (January 2019) (LBBLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP). Together these policies seek, amongst other things, a high standard of design and layout that positively recognise and compliment the qualities of the surrounding area. The proposal would also conflict with the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (July 2023), which requires all development proposals to make a positive contribution to their setting and seek to reinforce local character and identity.

Less than 75% of the proposed dwelling’s internal floorspace would achieve a minimum ceiling height of 2.5m as required by Policy D6 (F) of the LP and the Housing Design Standards London Plan Guidance (June 2023) ([name]). This is required so that new housing would be of adequate quality, especially in terms of light penetration, ventilation and cooling, and sense of space. Whilst the ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ has a lower minimum height of 2.3m, it precedes the LP and [name]. Consequently, the new house fails to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation with regards to internal living space that could reasonably be expected for a 4-person property.

I recognise that it might be possible to overcome this shortfall by increasing the height of the building accordingly. However, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the proposals before me.

The lower ground floor would accommodate an open plan living space with full height windows that would face southwest and look out onto a sunken private rear courtyard. The ground floor would have 2 bedrooms, also with southwest facing full height windows. The front door and bathroom window would face the northeast and towards [site address] . This would enable a degree of passive/natural ventilation across the whole dwelling.

On this basis and in addition to the size and orientation of the windows to the living space and bedrooms, as well as the depth and height of the sunken private rear courtyard, I am satisfied that an oppressive environment would not be created in this regard.

[name] have found that the proposed development would provide sufficient outlook, I have found harm to the living conditions for future occupiers with regard to the provision of internal living space. This would be contrary to Policies 4 and 37 of the LBBLP and Policy D3 and D6 of the LP, which include the need for housing schemes to respect spatial standards and provide healthy environments for future residents.

I give significant weight to the conflict with Policies 4 and 37 of the LBBLP and Policy D3 and D6 of the LP, which are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in ensuring that development is sympathetic to local character and in the creation of a high standard of amenity for future users. As a result, I find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council has indicated that it has a deliverable housing supply of 2.4 years, and it is in the process of preparing an updated five-year housing land supply position. An undisputed claim by the appellant puts the supply at under 1 year. In either case and applying the lower figure for the purpose of my assessment, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is applicable. Paragraph 11 d) ii) identifies that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact 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 certain key policies including achieving well-designed places.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution in the relatively quick delivery of an accessible dwelling, that makes efficient use of land within an established residential area with access to facilities and public transport. There would also be an improvement to biodiversity, and it is indicated that the house would achieve Passivhaus standard.

The limited scale of the development means that I afford the provision of a new house within the context of the current shortfall, along with the other benefits listed above, moderate weight in favour of the appeal scheme. I have considered paragraphs 61 and 73 of the Framework, which emphasise the Governments objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area. I have also given due attention to Policy H2 of the LP that pro-actively supports well-designed new homes on small sites.

It is asserted that the appeal site does not impact upon highway or drainage infrastructure, protected assets, sensitive land designations or contain any protected trees or habitats. A lack of harm in these respects are neutral considerations that weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

On the other side of the balance, there would be an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area as well as inadequate living conditions for future occupiers, which would be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework. Given the long-lasting effects on both the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of future occupiers, I attribute significant weight to this conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole 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 is dismissed.