Appeal 6000555

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development that appears on the decision notice reads as follows, ‘Demolition of existing building and the redevelopment of the site to provide 14no. residential units with private amenity space and 1no. commercial unit (Class E use) alongside parking and other associated works’. Although the appellant has acknowledged the amended description and does not object to it, for this appeal I have used the description of development as originally set out in the application.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would: • Result in a justified loss of employment space • Fail to deliver an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes • Be out of keeping with the character of the area • Result in substandard living conditions for occupiers of surrounding residential properties • Have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of future occupiers • Require a planning agreement.

Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP) Policy 86 supports the change of use from office to other uses, subject to two criteria. These criteria broadly seek to ensure that any change of use is clearly and consistently evidenced (for example, requiring documentation of recent marketing of a site for reuse/redevelopment over a minimum of six months) and where mixed uses can be accommodated, that any proposal seeks to include sufficient flexibly designed floorspace for employment generating uses.

London Plan 2021 (LP) Policies E1 and E2 provide a strategic approach to office and business space as well as when change of use may be appropriate. Overall, they seek to protect employment space, ensure appropriate supply and support its diversification. Amongst other things, they identify appropriate direction when “surplus office space1” has been identified. Paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning decisions should support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities, by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation.

Marketing information provided by the appellant suggests that a number of the commercial premises in the appeal property are in use. A marketing exercise was undertaken by the appellant in advance of the application that led to this appeal, but it did not relate to the full extent of office accommodation at the site. It is also unclear whether existing tenants would be relocated in the proposed development as no information is provided regarding their displacement or re-location. Moreover, representations received point to localised demand for some of those services currently present, notably the chiropodist. These considerations lead me to the view that the marketing exercise undertaken does not provide the clear and consistent evidence that BLP Policy 86 expects to support such a change of use.

Accordingly, I find on this main issue that the proposed development would result in an unjustified loss of employment space. Without sufficient documentation evidencing a demonstrated lack of demand for the existing uses or employment alternatives, I conclude that the loss of employment space on the site conflicts with BLP Policy 86 and [name] E1 and E2. Significant harm would occur to the loss of local employment space provision as a result.

The supporting text to BLP Policy 1 indicates that the highest need is for one-bedroom units, followed by two-bedroom units, then three-bedroom units. It also states that proposals of five or more units should provide a mix of unit sizes. The policy itself isn’t explicit about the expected mix.

LP Policy H10 sets out some detail with regard to housing size mix. Firstly, it encourages reference to appropriate evidence, then the requirement for mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods, then other points to have regard to, such as the range of tenures, nature/location of the site and the role one- to two-bedroom units can have in freeing up family housing (as well as the need for family housing itself).

To deliver a sufficient supply of homes, NPPF paragraph 61 sets out that the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community and paragraph 96 states that planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, including between people who might not otherwise come into contact with one another (amongst other things). 1 As set out of paragraph 6.1.7 of the LP.

Both the BLP and the LP highlight one- to two-bedroom units are needed and have potential for different positive effects on supply. The appellant states they have referred to the 2017 London Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), which is consistent with the approach in the LP.

The proposed development may not include a wide range of different types but does appear to respond to the most needed sizes. Owing to the amount of development and the location of the site within a local centre, the dwelling mix could be better diversified but the proposed is not inappropriate. In respect of this main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would provide an appropriate dwelling mix and is consistent with BLP Policy 1 and LP Policy H10 and it is unlikely harm would occur as a result of the proposed development in relation to the dwelling mix. As such, the proposed dwelling mix has limited weight as a benefit to the scheme.

In broad terms and amongst other things, [name] 3, 4, 8 and 37 seek to ensure new development is designed in a way that respects the character of the area and maintains reasonable relief between buildings and boundaries. Similarly, [name] D3 and D4 seek to promote design-led approaches that are of high quality, enhance local distinctiveness and make the best use of land through appropriate densities and layout.

NPPF paragraph 9 sets out that planning decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area. NPPF paragraph 131 states that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve and that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

The site is located on [address], which is part of a local centre. The properties along the road close to the site vary in form and style. The buildings on the same side of the road as the site in the direction of travel away from the centre of [site address] appear generally residential and of lower density. Travelling towards the centre of [site address] , they are typically commercial or mixed use in appearance and two or three storeys in height. Brickwork and sloping tiled roofs are common in both cases, with some rendered walls and flat roofs. The building line is largely consistent and exposed, with little in the way of greenery/vegetation or street furniture (except in front of [address]). The opposite side of the road appears to be predominantly residential, with a mix of dwellinghouses and flatted developments. There are more trees and hedges on this side of the road, providing more screening of these properties from the road.

No evidence has been provided to suggest that the appeal site is in a conservation area. Therefore, there is a degree of flexibility with design in this regard. Notwithstanding, BLP Policy 4 requires, “a high standard of design and layout whilst enhancing the quality of local spaces”. Similarly, LP Policy D3 expects development proposals to be design-led, enhance local context and be of high quality.

The proposed development includes two buildings – a front building and a rear building. Both buildings share characteristics in terms of scale and design to some existing buildings in the wider area (particularly those in the denser [site address] centre). In the context of the varied and graduated roofscapes, and the lower densities of surrounding buildings, the three-storey front building would appear unapologetically assertive and therefore incongruous.

In addition, the layout and orientation of the buildings on the site are problematic. The bulk of the development would be positioned to the rear of the site in the form of the rear building. This layout is at odds with the pattern of development along this section of [address] where larger blocks are largely stepped to two storeys at the rear. Significantly, the layout would result in insufficient relief between the proposed larger block to the rear of the site and the rear of properties on [address]. This, in turn, accentuates the height of the building close to the boundary shared with low density dwellinghouses and rear gardens, resulting in an dominant development form. The absence of relief between the building and the boundaries to the rear of the site suggests an absence of a design-led approach. As such, the proposed buildings would fail to reflect or enhance local character and distinctiveness appropriately through their design, appearance and scale.

It follows from the above that, in failing to deliver the high standard of design, adequate separation between built form and boundaries, enhancement of local context with buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, the proposed development conflicts with [name] 3, 4, 8 and 37 and [name] D3 and D4. I therefore find on this main issue that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of the area, particularly as a result of its scale, form, and layout and inappropriate for the surrounding context. Consequently, significant harm to the character of the area would result due to the design of the proposed development.

BLP Policy 3 requires backland development to provide a high standard of separation and landscaping and for the development not to have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers through loss of privacy, sunlight, daylight and disturbance from additional traffic. BLP Policy 8 requires proposed developments of two or more storeys in height to have a minimum 1 metre space from the side boundary. LP Policy D6 states that the design of development should provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to surrounding housing that is appropriate for its context, whilst minimising overshadowing and maximising the usability of outside amenity space. [name] D3 and D6 also require new development to deliver appropriate privacy.

NPPF paragraph 135 states that planning decisions should ensure developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appellant’s daylight and sunlight assessments conclude that there would be a reduction in both sunlight and daylight into windows serving surrounding properties, but that this reduction would be acceptable within BRE guidelines.

The evidence does not seem to take into account the unconventional shape of the rear boundary of [address] and the effects that could result on the rear gardens of properties along [address], which would be closest to the largest building in the proposed development. There are some trees along the rear boundary of the site. However, these would not sufficiently soften views of or reduce the overbearing presence of the proposed development due to its height and its proximity to the boundaries shared with properties along [address]. Furthermore, the introduction of a three-storey building close to the side boundary shared with [address] would inevitably affect the way occupiers use the garden associated with this property, compromising the enjoyment of their private amenity space.

The LPA considers that the proposed development would result in an increase in activity, general noise and disturbance for surrounding occupiers. The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) submitted by the appellant proposes acoustic mitigation for the commercial unit. However, as the majority of the site is currently used as a car park and garages associated with the commercial premises. As such, there is potential for there to be an existing level of noise arising from vehicles (for example, for staff, customers and deliveries).

The area is predominantly residential and the NIA indicates existing noise comes mainly from the road and commercial units along it. As the proposed development is largely residential, in principle, the use is consistent with surrounding development. There is not sufficient evidence before me to suggest that the proposed development would result in adverse noise and disturbance, with the exception of the period of construction, which would likely result in short-term disturbance.

However, the proposed development is also purported to include heat pumps. These may generate noise, but the submitted drawings do not indicate where these would be located. The NIA indicates that any plant to be included (such as air source heat pumps) should adhere to noise design limits to keep any effects from noise low. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposed development would be acceptable in this respect and the noise effects of construction and plant could be mitigated by planning conditions.

Representations received raise concerns with the effect of the proposed development on privacy for occupiers of the properties close to the site on [address] as well as [address]. As such, I have considered potential for loss of privacy to occupiers of surrounding residential properties caused by overlooking from the proposed development.

The proposed rear building, particularly due to its height and the position of windows to its rear, would introduce a significant element of overlooking to the rear of dwellinghouses and gardens along [address] to a degree that would far exceed the current situation. This overlooking would compromise the level of privacy experienced by occupiers of these properties to a material and harmful degree.

There is also potential for the proposed front building to negatively impact privacy for the occupiers of [address] due to the presence of side-facing windows. Whilst side facing windows exist at the site currently, they are associated with the existing commercial space at [site address] and their uses would likely be restricted to typical office hours. However, the proposed front building would see residential properties at these upper levels including windows that serve habitable rooms. This would result in a material loss of privacy to occupiers of this property.

It is less likely that privacy would be compromised for the occupiers of [address]. This is due to the distance between [address] and the proposed development and as the position and orientation of the proposed rear building would unlikely result in direct views between proposed windows and existing windows at [address].

Notwithstanding, as discussed above, in relation to its layout and its uncharacteristic proximity to boundaries the proposed development fails to deliver the standard of amenity expected by the development plan in these terms. I therefore find on this main issue that the proposed development would result in substandard living conditions for occupiers of surrounding residential properties at nos. 51, 53, 55 and [address] due to its overbearing built form and the introduction of a significant degree of overlooking that would lead to significant harm. The proposed development is therefore contrary to [name] 3, 4 and 8 as well as [name] D3 and D6. The lack of harm that I have found in respect of noise and disturbance is neutral factor that weighs neither for nor against the proposed development in the overall planning balance.

BLP Policy 3 requires backland development to provide a high standard of separation and landscaping and for the development to avoid unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of future occupiers through sunlight, daylight, loss of privacy or disturbance from additional traffic. BLP Policy 4 requires compliance with space standards in the LP and sufficient external, private amenity space that is accessible and practical. LP Policy D6 states that the design of development should maximise the usability of outside amenity space.

NPPF paragraph 135 states that planning decisions should ensure developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The daylight and sunlight assessment concludes that all new dwelling units would receive adequate daylight and most would meet sunlight targets. However, it states that one of the units in the rear building (Flat 2) would not meet the sunlight criteria under one of two of the tests used in the assessment and that two of the units in the front building would not receive the recommended levels of sunlight. In this front building, of the 34 habitable rooms in the front building, only 17 of these would satisfy the sunlight criteria. The assessment finds this acceptable overall and further seeks to counter this by suggesting that the proposed balconies or amenity space could mitigate this effect. However, the same report earlier states that daylight and sunlight do not tend to be assessed for balconies due to the constraints on this type of urban feature. As such, it is not clear whether this provision would compensate for the negative effect on sunlight received into internal spaces or not.

There is not satisfactory evidence to demonstrate that the outdoor amenity space serving the dwelling units would receive sufficient daylight or sunlight, nor are they all likely to be practical due to their small size – particularly the ground floor unit in the rear building with the wraparound outdoor private amenity space (as shown on Proposed Block Plan, no. 2104 – 02 A). This outdoor amenity space may not be accessible to occupiers and would be of limited utility due to its narrow width.

BLP Policy 4 requires developments to include the provision of sufficient external private amenity space that is accessible and practical. Further to this, Table 3.2 to LP Policy D6, amongst other things, states that, “Private amenity space for each dwelling should be usable and have a balance of openness and protection, appropriate for its outlook and orientation”. The NIA also indicates that [address] boarded fence or hedge equivalent would need to serve as the boundary treatments to these private amenity spaces. Although this would have benefits in terms of acoustic screening and privacy, there are likely to be negative effects in relation to daylight, sunlight and outlook due to the size of these outdoor spaces in relation to the height of the boundary treatments. Although the outdoor amenity spaces may meet the minimum size standards their useability and enjoyment by residents may be compromised due to their layout, position and boundary treatments that would have an overbearing effect.

The proposed development, in relation to provision of outdoor amenity space, internal sunlight and daylight conditions, the living conditions for future occupiers of the development would not meet the expectations set out in the development plan. Due to the siting of the proposed buildings, the proximity of trees both on and off the site at its rear and the limited separation space between the built form and site boundaries would affect the amount of daylight and sunlight received through windows of the proposed rear building as well as the outdoor amenity space and associated boundary treatments. In respect of this main issue, I therefore find that the design, layout and orientation of the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of future occupiers of both buildings due to inadequate internal sunlight and daylight conditions and private amenity spaces that would be limited in utility and openness. As a result, the proposed development conflicts with [name] 3, 4, 8 and 37 and [name] D3, D4 and D6. Subsequently, the proposed development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the residential units.

BLP Policy 125 sets out that, where appropriate, the LPA will enter into legal agreements with developers. BLP Policy 124 seeks reductions in carbon in relation to major development. LP Policy S4 expects development proposals that are likely to be used by children and young people to include play space provision, LP Policy SI 2 seeks to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, LP Policy H5 sets a threshold in relation to major development that triggers affordable housing requirements and LP Policy DF1 expects proposals to provide the infrastructure and other relevant policy requirements necessary to ensure that they are sustainable and to support delivery of the LP.

The appellant has provided a draft agreement, however it is not finalised. I consider the obligations sought to meet the tests, failure to provide a finalised agreement is therefore not in accordance with the development plan.

Further to this, although the LPA has agreed in principle to a children’s play space contribution through a planning agreement, in its SoC, the LPA states that for younger children (e.g., aged 1-5) there should be appropriate play space on the site where the safety of children can be overseen on site and the provision of internal space would not adequately provide for their play space needs. LP Policy S4 sets out that where development proposals are “likely to be used by children or young people”, certain criteria should be met. However, as the planning agreement has not been agreed between the parties, it is not possible to satisfactorily ascertain whether additional onsite play space would also be required.

Consequently, in the absence of a completed planning agreement and matters still outstanding in relation to children’s play space, there is no guarantee the provisions required by the agreement to make the development acceptable would be delivered. As such, the proposed development fails to accord with BLP Policy 125 and [name] 2, S4, H5 and DF1. Accordingly, I find on this main issue that a planning agreement is required but has not been provided. Its absence would have an unacceptable effect on the provision of affordable housing (via a contribution), children’s play space, carbon offsetting and relevant monitoring. Material harm would follow as a result of the proposed development in relation to the matters that would be addressed by a planning agreement.

BLP Policy 1 aims for the LPA to make provision for approximately 641 additional homes per year, in part to be delivered within mixed use developments that include housing in suitable locations. The proposed development would include 14 dwelling units. Moreover, the site is located on brownfield land within a Local Centre. NPPF paragraph 125 states that planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused.

Further, all proposed units proposed would meet Building Regulations standard M4(2), which relates to accessibility and adaptability. Two of the units (in the rear building) are also proposed to meet adaptability and accessibility standard M4(3) for wheelchair user dwellings, which could contribute towards meeting the needs of different groups. However, the front block would not have a lift, so the first and second floors would be difficult to access for those with specific accessibility needs. Nevertheless, the proposal is consistent with the requirement for new housing to meet M4(2) and for 10% of new housing to meet M4(3) set out in BLP Policy 4 (criterion j) and LP Policy D7.

It is common ground that the LPA cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The latest confirmed position confirmed by the LPA during the course of this appeal was a 1.93-year housing land supply, equating to 2,541 units. It is also common ground that the LPA delivered less than 75% (i.e., substantially below the number) of the homes it was required to over the most recently published [name] measurement period.

Due to the LPA’s deficit in housing land supply and for housing delivery that was substantially below what was required, NPPF footnote 8 applies. This means that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is triggered and 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 NPPF taken as a whole.

The overall contribution the proposed dwellings would make to the housing provision of the area and the accessibility and adaptability of the proposed dwellings are aspects of the development that weigh substantially as a benefit.

The appellant has identified the development at [address] as a precedent in the area. Although close to the appeal site, 156A is notably more central to the commercial and retail area and its design reflects this character. There is a shopping parade with flats adjacent to [address], which is very different to the scale and bulk of the buildings surrounding the appeal site. In contrast, the appeal site is closer to a greater proportion of lower density buildings and where larger scale buildings are present, these benefit from screening by trees and hedges to the front. In addition, there are dwellinghouses as well as smaller commercial units, which should inform considerations about design in the immediate street scene.

Although this development as a precedent is comparable to an extent, it is quite different to the scale of the proposed (which includes two buildings, rather than one) and the character of the location is sufficiently different to give limited weight to it as a consideration in relation to this appeal.

[name] T6, T6.1 and T6.2 promote car-free developments where possible and establish maximum parking standards for London. BLP Policy 30 sets parking standards for residential developments in Bromley. Representors suggest that the proposed development would result in insufficient parking provision. There is to be no change in the number of available parking spaces as a result of development. There are 16 existing spaces and 16 proposed. 1 would serve the commercial unit and 15 would serve the residential units (including 2 disabled bays, 9 electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking).

The LPA considers the site to have a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 1a. The appellant and highway authority consider it to have a rating of 1b. In either case, the connectivity score is low and parking standards set out in the development plan policies would not change. It is common ground that the parking provision is appropriate for the site and it has not attracted objection from the highway authority. I have assessed parking provision against the aforementioned policies and find it to be consistent with the requirements set out.

In relation to highway matters, the highway authority indicated a passing place at the site entrance would better facilitate access as it is single width. The appellant submitted a swept path analysis during the course of the planning application to address this matter. I am content this has addressed this issue. Although some representations indicate the number of residential units and associated vehicular movements on the site would result in highway safety concerns, there is no evidence before me to suggest this would be the case and the highway authority has not indicated the proposed development would give rise to highway safety issues.

Acceptable parking provision would be included in the proposed development and the proposed development would not result in highway safety issues. The avoidance of harm in this respect, however, does not represent a benefit but a neutral factor in the overall planning balance.

Like any mixed-use development of this scale, the proposal would result in some economic benefits - during its construction phase and where local services are used by its occupiers during the lifetime of the development. The scale of the proposed development would result in relatively short-lived benefits flowing from its construction phase and its effects on the sustainability of local services are likely to be modest. These economic benefits are, however, tempered by the reduction in employment space on the site. Accordingly, parking and highways matters have only a neutral effect on the overall planning balance.

Some representations included concerns about the trees on or near the site as well as the potential for the site to support protected species. Some species cited in representations included great crested newts, bats and slow worms.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 along with the NPPF provide the basis for the protection of habitats and protected species in relation to development activities. The site does not fall within or close to a designated habitats site. Policy 73 of the Local Plan requires proposals for new development to take particular account of existing trees on the site and on adjoining land.

Notwithstanding, a preliminary assessment of the presence of protected species on the site has been addressed in a [name] (PEA), dated 12 September 2024. In summary, the PEA that the site ranged from having potential to having suitability to support bats (both roosting as well as commuting and foraging), reptiles and nesting birds. It goes on to suggest ecological mitigation recommendations, which include inspection of the tree to be felled (prior to its felling), sensitive vegetation clearance, tree/shrub clearance to be undertaken outside of bird nesting season and that external lighting should be sensitive to the needs of bats. The PEA also makes various recommendations for ecological enhancements comprising the inclusion of bat bricks or tubes, bird nesting boxes, the planting of native species hedgerows, species-rich meadow grassland and installation of beebrick(s) together with the planting of bee friendly plants.

In addition to appropriate tree protection in relation to trees themselves and a request to move the cycle store, the tree officer for the LPA further recommended an endoscope examination of the trees to be felled to protect bats.

Policy 37 requires all development proposals to use the space about buildings to provide opportunities to create attractive settings using landscaping (including enhancing biodiversity). NPPF paragraph 187 sets out that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment in various ways, including incorporating features that support priority or threatened species.

The appellant’s biodiversity net gain assessment indicates that through on-site habitat retention and creation measures the proposed development would generate a biodiversity net gain of 16.13%. Further to this, the LPA has suggested conditions relating to biodiversity, if the appeal is allowed.

Subject to appropriately worded conditions (to include mitigations and enhancements), the proposed development could avoid harm to protected species. The biodiversity enhancements on site would be consistent with policy requirements, exceeding the 10% minimum net gain required and would provide a long-term benefit. This benefit can be attributed moderate weight in the consideration of the appeal.

LP Policy SI 2 requires major development proposals to be net zero-carbon, to be accompanied by a detailed energy strategy and to reduce energy consumption (or make a financial contribution through off-site provision). BLP Policy 124 has similar aims. NPPF paragraph 161 states that the planning system should support the transition to net zero by 2050 and take full account of all climate impacts.

The LPA expects to see a commitment to the energy strategy and states that the submitted strategy does not employ the most up to date Greater London Authority’s guidance. I have reviewed the energy strategy having regard to the aforementioned policies. Although the document indicates proposals that appear to be policy compliant and the policies do not explicitly require that any particular guidance is adhered to in devising an energy statement, the requirements of the policies would appear to be satisfied. However, the proposals within the strategy are material to the fabric of the building and they have not been included on plans. They include an air source heat pump for each dwelling unit and solar voltaic panels for the roof, for example. Air source heat pumps could have implications for the character and appearance of the proposed development and surrounding area as well as noise implications (if the requirements of the NIA are not followed). The installation of solar voltaic panels may compromise the amount of green roof space to be delivered, which may compromise biodiversity enhancements.

The full details of the effects of the implementation of the energy strategy are not available to me. For the aforementioned reasons, these aspects of the proposals do not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

A representation has included concerns about the proposed development in relation to water neutrality. However, as I have not been presented with any substantive evidence to suggest that water neutrality is a relevant issue in relation to this appeal, it is a neutral matter.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan in several respects. In this regard, NPPF paragraph 232 states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. I have, therefore, taken into account development plan policies that both oppose and support the proposed development and whether these are consistent with the NPPF. Overall, the development plan policies that are engaged for the purposes of this appeal are consistent with the NPPF.

I attach significant weight to the conflict the proposed development would have with development plan policies in relation to local character, living conditions of surrounding occupiers and the absence of a suitable planning agreement (that would secure affordable housing provision, children’s play space and other contributions). Further to this, I attach moderate weight to the conflict the proposed development would have with development plan policies relating to employment space, living conditions of future occupiers and carbon reduction.

Benefits of the proposed development that accord with development plan policies and substantially weigh in favour of the development would be the delivery of 14 dwelling units that are consistent in terms of dwelling mix and in terms of adaptability and accessibility. The proposal would also deliver a benefit in terms of biodiversity net gain.

Paragraph 11 d) of the NPPF explains that in these circumstances, 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 NPPF taken as a whole. In this case, the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance as set out at footnote 7 of the NPPF are not relevant and as such, cannot provide a strong reason for refusal.

However, I have taken into account the policies in the NPPF as a whole – meaning that I have considered policies that weigh both in favour of and against the proposed development and having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations and making effective use of land. I conclude that the living conditions of both surrounding occupiers and future occupiers, the character and appearance of the area, the provision of employment space and the failure to provide a planning agreement (which includes a contribution to affordable housing, children’s play space, carbon offsetting and relevant monitoring) would result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of allowing the appeal.

The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, in accordance with s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Consequently, no material considerations in support of the appeal scheme, either alone or taken together, indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan, with which, in terms of the aforementioned policies, the proposed development would conflict. As a result, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.