Appeal 6000579

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.

Revised details have been submitted with the appeal. These include clarification of site area coverage, sight lines from the rear upper floor level, the inclusion of obscured openable upper lights above the front doors and the rear elevation windows, and added planters to the living green wall. These details do not amount to a substantial difference or fundamental change to the proposed development. As such, no party would be prejudiced by the appeal being considered on the basis of the revised details.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether acceptable living conditions would be provided for occupiers of the proposed development, with particular regard to outlook; and • the effect of the proposed development on living conditions for occupiers of 70 and [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site is located within an area of mixed residential and commercial character. The development pattern largely consists of two and three storey buildings facing onto the street. 70 and [address] (Nos 70 and 70A) sit within a block which reflects this prevailing scale, containing ground floor retail premises and residential accommodation above. The appeal site comprises garden land and a single storey derelict garage / workshop which sits to the rear of Nos 70 and 70A. It is accessed by a service road off [address] and assimilates with the subservient immediate context of rear gardens, service areas and ancillary buildings including garages.

Even accounting for their single storey profile on the service road, the dwellings together with their associated parking and garden areas, would be overtly independent. In that respect, they would be at odds with the subservient character of the land, buildings and activity on the service road.

More particularly, and regardless of the precise percentage site coverage, the dwellings and associated land would have a substantial footprint and would be tightly positioned amongst the surrounding built form and the rear elevations of the nearest buildings on [address], while providing rear garden space of very limited depth. Consequently, the proposed development would appear unduly cramped. The tall living green wall, shown to be only 2.5 metres from the rear elevations of 70 and [address] (Nos 70 and 70A), would further emphasise the overly tight visual relationship and the uncharacteristic placement of dwellings immediately to the rear of these properties.

Consequently, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policies 4 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which require development to be of a high standard of design and layout, to compliment the scale, proportion, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas and to ensure that development is of the most appropriate form and land use for the site.

For the same reasons, it would also conflict with the guidance relating to local character, context, coherent patterns of development and high standards of housing design in DG1, DG3 and DG7 of [name] Planning Document (2023) (SPD).

Due to the projection of the proposed balcony above the ground-floor rear windows serving the kitchen and living / dining area, together with the close proximity of these windows to the proposed two-storey tall green living wall and the existing high side wall of [address], the resulting outlook from these windows would be unacceptably enclosed and oppressive for occupiers of the proposed development. Whether or not the rear garden area would provide suitable outdoor space for one-bedroomed dwellings, this does not justify the poor outlook that would be provided for occupiers.

Therefore, unacceptable living conditions would be provided for occupiers of the proposed development, with particular regard to outlook. In that regard, the proposed development would conflict with the requirements in Policies 4 and 37 of the BLP and Policy D6 of the LP for development to be of a high standard of design with functional layouts and which respect the amenity of future occupiers. For the same reasons, the proposal would also conflict with Paragraph 138 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that developments should ensure that developments function well and provide a high standard of amenity for future users; as well as the healthy living environment guidance in DG7 of the SPD. Living conditions for occupiers of 70 and [address]

The upper floors of Nos 70 and 70A are in residential use with the rear facing windows providing direct views towards the appeal site. Notwithstanding the close proximity of the proposed development to these properties, and whether or not the indicated planter would be placed on top of the proposed intervening living green wall, the height of this wall and line of sight would prevent any meaningful overlooking from the development into the neighbouring windows.

The proposed development would therefore have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of 70 and [address], with particular regard to privacy. In that regard, it would comply with Policy 37 of the BLP which seeks development that protects the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers including their privacy.

Any lack of communication between the parties during the planning application process is not a matter which influences my assessment of the planning merits of the appeal. Whether or not the site is currently used by fly tippers, there is nothing to suggest that the proposed development would be the only way to prevent this.

There is no dispute between the parties that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land. The evidence before me indicates a worst-case scenario of 2.4 years supply. The provision of two, one-bedroomed dwellings would make a minor but important contribution towards the Council’s housing requirements considering this shortfall. There would also be social and economic benefits deriving from the development of the site and through the contribution of future occupiers to services and facilities in the local area.

However, I have found that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would not provide suitable living conditions for occupiers of the dwellings. Taken together the harm would be significant and would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits identified when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply and planning permission should not be granted. Accordingly, I recommend that the appeal is dismissed.

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