Appeal 6000585

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of garage and construction of a two-storey dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with landscaping, cycle parking, bin storage, car parking and associated external alterations at [site address] [site address] , Greenwich, Sidcup, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1224/F, subject to the conditions in the following Schedule.

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 Council’s description of the development is used in the Decision above, as it describes the proposed development in more precise terms than the description on the application form, which is set out in the banner heading above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site lies within a residential area characterised by an eclectic mix of dwellings, the majority of which are two-storey semi-detached properties. The surrounding streetscape includes clusters of dwellings that exhibit a consistent architectural character. No [site address] is part of a semi-detached pair that features distinctive mullioned windows with ornate scrolling with detail to the porch. This pair of dwellings are positioned forward of the general building line, with the principal elevation set at a slight angle to the road. This arrangement results in the side elevations being particularly prominent and clearly visible within the street scene.

The proposal would entail demolition of the existing attached single-storey garage and subdivision of the side garden curtilage associated with No [site address] [site address] . The site’s side boundary directly adjoins an electrical substation, while the frontage is defined by a high brick boundary wall.

Whilst the proposed dwelling would be detached and would not replicate the predominately semi-detached form of development along the street, this distinction would not, in itself, result in harm to the character or appearance of the area. Detached dwellings are already present within the immediate street scene, including Nos 331 and 331a situated directly opposite the site. Furthermore, the electrical substation introduces a clear physical and visual break in the built form. When assessed in this context, the proposed detached dwelling would respect the established pattern of development and would integrate satisfactorily into the street scene, without appearing visually intrusive or incongruous.

The overall width of the proposed dwelling would be comparable to that of an individual neighbouring semi-detached property, therefore reflecting the established pattern of relatively narrow plot frontages in this part of the road. As a result, the proposal would not appear unduly dominant or excessive in terms of its horizontal vertical massing within the street scene.

The proposal would result in some erosion of the existing gap between properties first-floor level and a corresponding change in the perception of openness. However, this would not be to such an extent that would cause harm to the wider character and appearance of the area, as gaps vary considerably in width in this area. In this context, a sufficient and proportionate gap would be retained between the side elevation of the proposed dwelling and the adjoining electrical substation. Therefore, the development would not appear cramped or visually intrusive with the street scene.

The proposed dwelling would be positioned forward of the prevailing building line, consistent with the siting of the semi-detached dwellings at Nos 276 and [site address] . It would be further forward than the properties in the next row, meaning that the side elevation would be clearly visible when approaching on one direction, however that is not significantly different to the existing situation where the side of No [site address] is clearly visible. Although its orientation would differ from its neighbours, the proposal would front the road in a manner reflective of the surrounding streetscape. The main part of the dwelling would also be set back behind the front projection. Given the curvature of the road and the intervening separation provided by the electrical substation, the siting of the dwelling would appear coherent and would not be awkward or discordant in its context.

The proposed materials and fenestration would be sympathetic to those prevailing in the area. The dwelling would share comparable eaves and ridge heights with No [site address] , ensuring that it would not appear unduly prominent in the street scene. While proposed as a detached dwelling, it would reflect the form, scale and proportions of Nos 276 and [site address] . The staggered front elevation and gabled frontage would also reflect the characteristic gabled detailing of the nearby semi-detached pairs at Nos 282 and 284. Together, these design elements would ensure that the proposal preserves the character and appearance of the surrounding area and integrates appropriately within the established streetscape.

Consequently, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), Policies DH1, H5 and H(c) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) (CS) which refers to high quality design which seeks to ensure development responds to the existing character of a place with regard to scale, design and density of development.

Furthermore, it would also accord with the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) which refers to high quality design, which seek to ensure development responds to the existing character of a place and is of a high quality and comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks in chapter 12 the creation of high quality buildings and good design.

The Council’s decision notice also refers to Policy D4 of the LP which relates to design, quality of the built and open environment. However, this is strategic in nature and has not therefore been determinative in my consideration.

[name] (BNG) legislation became mandatory (under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021)) for ‘minor sites’ on 2nd April 2024. BNG is an approach to development which makes sure a development has a measurably positive impact (‘net gain’) on biodiversity, compared to what was there before development. This legislation sets out that developers must deliver a minimum BNG of 10% - this means a development will result in more, or better quality, natural habitat than there was before development. The development does not fall within any of the exemptions for BNG and therefore is required to provide a minimum of 10% BNG.

Under the statutory framework for BNG, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to a general biodiversity gain condition to secure the biodiversity gain objective. It is a pre-commencement condition: once planning permission has been granted, a Biodiversity Gain Plan must be submitted and approved by the planning authority before commencement of the development. The Council has confirmed that the statutory condition should apply and that a legal obligation is not required.

The Councils Officer Report states that a [name] has identified that the proposal would result in 17.37% net gain. However, it raised concerns that limited details have been provided as to how this would be achieved and sought further clarification on whether the main metric tool is required given the proximity to the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

The Small Sites Metric ([name]) (SSM) [name] (July

sets out the criteria that must be satisfied for use of the SSM, including that no priority habitats are present on-site, no statutory protected sites or habitats would be affected, and that no European protected species are present. A SINC is a non-statutory designation. Based on the evidence before me, the proposal appears to accord with the criteria for use of the SSM. Whilst some uncertainty remains regarding the robustness of the metric conclusions, it has not been demonstrated that the statutory biodiversity net gain condition is not capable of being satisfactorily discharged. It is acknowledged, however, that the appellants maybe required to provide additional information to the Council as part of the discharge of conditions process.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on the ‘Use of planning conditions’. As a result, I have amended some of the conditions so they are enforceable, precise, relevant, necessary and reasonable in all other respects.

The standard time-limit condition and a condition requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans are necessary in the interests of clarity and certainty.

Conditions are necessary in respect of car and cycle parking and refuse storage to ensure appropriate provision is made, in the interests of highway safety, encouraging sustainable transport, and the character and appearance of the area.

Conditions relating to water demand efficiency and boiler emissions are necessary to ensure the efficient use of water and energy. These conditions would secure compliance with in policy DH1 of the CS, which seeks to promote water efficiency and policy E1 of the CS, which requires development to reduce energy demand through appropriate design measures.

As the development is for a single dwelling with good highway visibility and accessibility, I do not consider it necessary to secure a construction method statement.

The Framework is clear that planning conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear justification for doing so. In this case, the Council has suggested that, should the appeal be allowed permitted development rights relating to future enlargement or alterations to the dwelling should be removed.

The approved dwelling would be positioned close to the site boundaries, however, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the withdrawal of permitted development rights is necessary to protect either the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Any enlargements or alterations carried out under permitted development would be subject to statutory limitations. I find there is insufficient justification to impose a condition removing permitted development rights.

The Council has suggested a pre-commencement condition requiring the development to meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’, with detailed design to be approved by the local planning authority. Whilst such a condition would align with Policies D5 and D7 of The London Plan (2021) (LP) which require high standards of accessible and inclusive design, it would be unnecessary for this to be a pre-commencement condition as compliance with Building Regulations, including the timing and approval of relevant details, is overseen by Building Control through a separate statutory process.

The Council has suggested a condition to ensure that the statutorily required 10% BNG is achieved. As permission is deemed to be granted subject to this requirement, a specific condition is not necessary.

The proposal would accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and Framework.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions in the following Schedule.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing nos including the materials specified thereon; 25105- DRG-000 Rev01, 25105-DRG-002 Rev01, 25105-DRG-102, 25105-DRG-103 Rev01, 25105-DRG-104 Rev01, 25105-DRG-105

The dwelling hereby approved shall be constructed in order to achieve a reduction in potable water demand to a maximum of 105 litres per person per day based on the Government’s national calculation method for water efficiency for the purpose of the Building Regulations.

Any boilers used for the new residential unit hereby permitted shall have dry NOx emissions not exceeding 40 mg/kWh (0%).

The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until secure and dry cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with details that have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking spaces shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, three 240L waste bins (1 for general waste, 1 for recyclable waste and 1 for food waste) shall be provided to serve the development. The bins and storage area shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until car parking provision has been completed and made available for use in accordance with the approved plans. The car parking shall thereafter be retained and maintained available for the parking of cars for the lifetime of the development.

The dwelling hereby approved shall be designed and constructed to comply with Part M4(2): Category 2 of [name] of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 and all measures for accessibility and adaptability shall thereafter be implemented in full and retained for the lifetime of the development.