Appeal 6000534

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single-storey rear extension to facilitate the conversion of a single-family home into two self-contained flats: 1 x 3 [name] and 1 x 2 Bedroom flat together with refuse and cycle storage at [site address] , Mottingham, Bromley, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 25/00401/FULL1, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by Ravensworth Developments Ltd against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development of the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address] (No.11) with regard to the provision of natural light, outlook, noise and disturbance.

The appeal site relates to a semi-detached dwelling on [address]. The surrounding area predominately comprises of residential properties of a similar size and style.

In planning terms, the character of an area goes beyond the physical appearance of an area. It also encompasses how a development contributes towards local identity. There is some dispute between the main parties over surrounding uses along the street. The appellant states that there are some residential conversions along the street, whilst the Council stipulate that it comprises entirely of individual houses. Based on the evidence before me and what I saw on my site visit, the street is predominantly characterised by single family dwellings.

The scheme would result in the creation of one 3-bedroom flat and one 2-bedroom flat. The Council outline how the 2 flats could potentially be occupied by a total of 10 people. However, the submitted plans show a total of 7 bedspaces, and 5 bedrooms. At present, the dwelling benefits from 4 bedrooms, plus a loft. Therefore, the proposal would result in similar levels of occupation, in comparison to the existing use.

Given the above, any increase in the intensity of the use including additional comings and goings, garden use, vehicle movements, deliveries and visits would be minimal and would not be readily discernible, even taking account of the tight knit and quiet nature of the street. It would therefore not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the area.

The partition of the garden would not be readily apparent from the street scene. Whilst it would be evident from neighbouring properties, for the reasons outlined above it would not result in material harm to the character of the area.

The scheme would likely result in the presence of additional bins to the front of the property. However, this would not be substantially more than those associated with the property’s existing use. Policy 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) requires developments waste storage facilities to be incorporated within a design layout. If the appeal were to be allowed, a planning condition requiring submission of details relating to waste storage could be used to ensure a high standard of design and prevent harm to the character of the area.

The scheme would result in the loss of a family dwelling. However, given the small scale of the development, any effect on housing choice within the locality would be negligible and the scheme may arguably contribute to housing choice. Additionally, the Council outline how the 3-bedroom flat would be suited to family occupation. Given this, I am satisfied that the scheme would not result in material harm to housing choice within the area.

For the reasons outlined above, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the character of the area. It would therefore accord with Policies 9 and 37 of the BLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development is of a high standard of design and residential conversions do not harm housing choice or the character of the area. It would also accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), which seeks to ensure that development responds to the character of an area. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers

The proposed single storey rear extension would extend across the width of the existing two-storey outrigger, with a depth of approximately 3.5 metres and a height of approximately 3 metres. It would be sited adjacent to the boundary with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No.11. I note that the appeal property sits on a slightly higher level than No.11.

The evidence before me indicates that No.11 benefits from patio doors on the rear elevation of its two-storey outrigger which serve a habitable space. With regard to the provision of daylight, as the patio doors at No. 11 would not be completely surrounded by built form, they would be provided with adequate daylight throughout the day. For these reasons, the outdoor amenity space would also be provided with adequate daylight.

With regard to the provision of sunlight, there may be some reduction in sunlight reaching the patio doors in the morning time. However, given the scale and flat roof design of the proposed extension, this would be minimal and would not result in material harm. Additionally, the evidence suggests that this habitable space benefits from side windows which would provide the room with natural light.

Any loss of sunlight to the outdoor amenity space would be limited to the morning time and would be concentrated to the area directly adjacent to the proposed extension. Overall, as a result of the scale and flat roof design of the extension, any loss would be minimal and would not result in material harm. Additionally, the garden serving No.11 is relatively spacious. Its size, coupled with the scale of the extension, means large portions of the garden would be unaffected by the extension, with regard to the provision of sunlight.

Overall, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.11, with regard to the provision of natural light.

With regard to outlook, I consider that the scale and flat roof design of the extension would limit its effect in this regard. Furthermore, the rear garden of No.11 is relatively spacious, limiting any effect on outlook from the garden area. Overall, while the extension would inevitably be visible, for these reasons, I do not consider that it would be of such a scale to result in a harmful loss of outlook.

As outlined, the submitted plans show a total of 7 bedspaces, and 5 bedrooms across the 2 flats. Given this, I do not agree with the Council’s assertion that the flats could collectively accommodate 10 people. This would be an increase of one bedroom, in comparison to the existing four-bedroom property. Additionally, it is likely that the existing property could accommodate a similar number of bedspaces, taking account of multi-generational or larger families. Any potential additional noise and disturbance from increased comings and goings or garden use would therefore be minimal.

The Council raise specific concerns regarding the positioning of the living/kitchen/dining facilities which would adjoin a shared balcony and be adjacent to an adjoining first floor bedroom at No.11. The submitted plans however indicate that the existing balcony door would be replaced with a window, therefore preventing its use and minimising any noise spillage. If the appeal were to be allowed, a condition to ensure the balcony is not used could be attached, in the interests of neighbouring living conditions. There is limited substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that removing this door would cause a safety risk.

The proposed living/kitchen/dining area would likely be more intensively used than the bedroom which currently occupies its position. However, given the overall size of the flat and the total number of bedspaces (4), any use would not be so significant so as to result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance. Furthermore, there is nothing before me to suggest that the existing property’s internal layout could not be amended so as to incorporate living space in this position, therefore having a similar effect. Given this, I do not consider it to be reasonable or necessary to require details of soundproofing.

An interested party raises concerns that the proposed patio doors on the rear extension could create additional noise and reduce privacy to neighbouring dwellings. The ground floor flat however accommodates a total of 3 bedspaces. This would not create any additional noise above and beyond what could normally be expected from a two-bedroom property in a residential area. Existing boundary treatments and the positioning of the door on the ground floor would ensure privacy to neighbouring occupiers.

Given the above, I consider that the scheme would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.11, with regard to noise and disturbance.

To conclude on the main issue, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No.11, with regard to the provision of natural light, outlook and noise and disturbance. It would therefore be in accordance with Policies 9 and 37 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Various interested parties refer to a previous application at the appeal site for a House in [name] (HMO) and suggest that the property may be used as an HMO. Concerns are also raised regarding another HMO in the street. The scheme is however not for an HMO, and I have assessed the appeal accordingly. Any previous planning application for an HMO is not directly comparable to the scheme before me. Additionally, the evidence outlines how a boroughwide Article [address] meaning that planning permission would be required for any conversion of the dwelling or flats into HMOs.

Given the relatively small scale of the extension, separation distances and the difference in land levels I do not consider that the proposed extension would harm the living conditions of occupiers at [address] of outlook or loss of light. No additional windows, apart from that on the ground floor extension and on the front elevation at the balcony are proposed. I therefore do not consider that the scheme would result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring residents. Numerous parties have made reference to the ‘Right to Light’ act. However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. Therefore, the protection of purely private interests such as a loss of private rights to light could not be a material consideration.

I do not consider that the removal of the balcony door and replacement with a window would harm the character and appearance of the area or the host property, given the minor nature of the works.

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding an increased demand for parking spaces. The evidence before me outlines how a parking stress survey was undertaken and submitted to the Council. The Highways Officer subsequently confirmed no highway objections to the scheme. I see no reason to disagree with this. Additionally, one car parking space is provided to the front of the property, within the site and on my site visit, there was a number of on street parking spaces available. Although this represents a snapshot in time, I have no reason to believe that what I saw is not representative.

There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that future occupiers would be unlikely to cycle. There is also no substantive evidence to indicate that the side access to the property would be cluttered and therefore discourage use of the rear garden, or that access to refuse storage, by the waste services team, would be problematic. There is also no substantive evidence to demonstrate that access from the road to the property would be compromised for people with mobility issues and large deliveries.

The scheme would provide an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers, including access to an adequate amount of external amenity space. A planning condition requiring the submission of details of boundary treatment to separate the partitioned gardens could be used if the appeal were to be allowed, to ensure privacy for future occupiers when using their garden areas. The application form states that the proposed units would not be M4(2) complaint, however they would be conversion dwellings, not new build dwellings. The Council has not raised any concerns regarding this. I see no reason to disagree with this.

Interested parties raise concerns regarding the lack of information in relation to [name] (BNG). The Council however consider that the proposal would fall within the de minimis exception and as such the mandatory BNG condition would not be applicable. I see no reason to disagree with this. The scheme does not propose the removal of any trees, and the proposed rear extension would be sited well away from an existing tree in the rear garden. As such, I am satisfied that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on trees. There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the proposal would harm bats. Apart from the proposed rear extension and the replacement of a door on the front elevation, no other external works, such as works to the roof, are proposed.

Concerns are raised regarding future maintenance of the properties, including concerns about mould and damp. There is however no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the properties would not be appropriately maintained. There is also no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the scheme would create a security or fire risk or attract pests. It is unlikely that any cooking smells would be above and beyond that created from a single dwelling.

Concerns have also been raised relating to the structural impact of the extension and other works and the possibility of inadequate foundations. There is no substantive evidence to show that the scheme would however result in structural damage, or inadequate foundations. Reference is made to the party wall agreement; however, this relates to a private matter between the relevant parties and has not influenced my decision.

Interested parties suggest that the flats would be used for social housing or to house a transient population. The application form however outlines how they would be marketed for sale. In any case, the scheme seeks permission for C3 dwellings, whether future occupiers would be transient or long-term residents is of little relevance to the appeal.

The appeal has been made by the original applicant. Concerns regarding the motivations and intentions of the appellant are raised. If planning permission is granted it would be for the applicant to choose whether to implement the permission or whether to market the property as a single dwellinghouse. The scheme has attracted numerous letters of objections. However, the number of objections is not a reasonable ground to refuse development in this instance.

Concerns are also raised that the development may set a precedent for other similar developments. However, each application and appeal must be determined on its individual merits, and a generalised concern regarding setting a precedent does not justify withholding permission in this case. Demolition and construction may cause some disruption, but it would be short-term in nature and not significant enough to withhold permission. If the appeal were to be allowed, a condition to control hours of construction could be used.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions in the interests of precision and enforceability.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

I have used a condition relating to the submission of a construction and environmental management statement in the interests of highway safety and neighbouring amenity. I have combined the requirement for wheel wash facilities as suggested by the Council into this condition to avoid duplication. It is necessary for this condition to be pre-commencement to ensure appropriate construction management measures are put in place before works commence

I have added a materials condition to ensure a satisfactory appearance. I have imposed a condition to ensure the submission and implementation of details of cycle storage, to ensure that the occupiers have the option to use sustainable means of transport to access the nearby services and facilities. I have also imposed a condition to ensure the submission and implementation of details of waste storage, in the interests of the visual amenity of the area. These conditions are prior to any above grounds works, to ensure that the details are acceptable prior to construction.

A pre-commencement condition (prior to above ground works) requiring details of the treatment of all parts of the site not covered by buildings, including boundary treatment is used, in the interests of the appearance of the area and neighbouring amenity. A condition is also used to ensure that the parking space is completed in accordance with the detail submitted, prior to first occupation of the development, in the interests of highway safety. I have used a condition to prevent the use of the balcony on the front elevation of the property, in the interests of neighbouring amenity. Finally, I have used a condition to control hours of construction, in the interests of neighbouring amenity.

I have not attached the suggested condition relating to preventing any additional windows or doors on the southern elevation of the extension. There is limited evidence before me to justify the need for this condition

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • OS and Location Plan: [name]. E000 • [name], [name]. P001 A • [name], [name]. D001 A • [name] & [name], [name]. P002 • [name], [name]. P003 • Proposed Section, [name]. P004

No development shall commence on site (including demolition) until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. As a minimum the plan shall cover: (a) Dust mitigation and management measures commensurate with a medium risk site. (b) The location and operation of plant and wheel washing facilities. (c) Measures to control demolition and construction noise including, where applicable, noise trigger levels and monitoring and a plan to show where the nearest noise sensitive premises are in relation to the site. (d) Details of construction traffic movements including cumulative impacts which shall demonstrate the following: (i) Rationalise travel and traffic routes to and from the site as well as within the site. (ii) Provide full details of the number and time of construction vehicle trips to the site with the intention and aim of reducing the impact of construction related activity. (iii) Measures to deal with safe pedestrian movement. (iv) Full contact details of the site and project manager responsible for day-to-day management of the works. (v) Parking for operatives during construction period. (vi) A swept path drawings for any tight manoeuvres on vehicle routes to and from the site including proposed access and egress arrangements at the site boundary. (e) Hours of operation. (f) Other site specific Highways and Environmental Protection issues as requested on a case by case basis. The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the details approved under Parts (a)-(f).

Prior to commencement of above ground works, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building which shall include roof cladding, wall facing materials and cladding, window glass, door and window frames, decorative features and rainwater goods where appropriate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the commencement of above ground works, details of arrangements for bicycle parking (including covered storage facilities where appropriate) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be completed before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, and permanently retained thereafter.

Prior to the commencement of above ground works, details of arrangements for the storage of refuse and recyclable materials (including means of enclosure) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be completed before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, and permanently retained thereafter.

Prior to commencement of above ground works details of treatment of all parts on the site not covered by buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be landscaped strictly in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season after completion or first occupation of the development, whichever is the sooner. Details shall include: - A scaled plan showing all existing vegetation to be retained and trees and plants to be planted which shall include use of a minimum of 30% native plant species and no invasive species; - Proposed hardstanding and boundary treatment; - A schedule detailing sizes and numbers of all proposed trees/plants - Sufficient specification to endure successful establishment and survival of new planting. There shall be no excavation or raising or lowering of levels within the prescribed root protection area of retained trees unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any new tree(s) that die(s), are/is removed or become(s) severely damaged or diseased shall be replaced and any new planting (other than trees) which dies, is removed, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced. Unless further specific permission has been given by the Local Planning Authority, replacement planting shall be in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the parking space shall be completed in accordance with the details as set out in this planning permission and thereafter shall be kept available for such use and no permitted development whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and reenacting this Order) or not shall be carried out on the land or garages indicated or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the said land.

The existing balcony area at first floor level on the front elevation of the property shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.

No construction work resulting from the planning permission shall be carried out on the premises at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, before 8.00 am, or before 8.00 am or after 6.00pm pm on other days. **END OF SCHEDULE**