Appeal 6000593

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development: • on the character and appearance of the area; and • on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers to the east, with regard to outlook and the provision of natural light.

The appeal site relates to a single storey semi-detached dwelling on [address]. The pair of semi-detached properties are situated on a bend in the road and occupy a Z-shaped footprint. Both properties are set back from the highway and have lawned frontages which are bounded by low brick walls. This layout is replicated on another bend in the road, and at the two junctions where [address] meets [address]. The layout creates a sense of symmetry and contributes to a sense of spaciousness in the area, particularly at the corner junctions and bends in the road.

The proposed development would result in the demolition of an existing garage and the creation of an additional single storey dwelling (with accommodation in the roof), attached onto the host property. The additional dwelling would be of considerable width, infilling most of the space between the side elevation of the host property and the side boundary of the site. The introduction of the additional dwelling would harm the sense of symmetry and character of the existing semi-detached pair.

Additionally, the reduced gap between the proposed property and the side boundary of the site would reduce the sense of spaciousness at the site, resulting in a cramped appearance. The proposed development would also substantially reduce the width of the plot and the size of the rear garden of the host property. The resultant plot would not be reflective of surrounding development on the corner plots, which typically occupy spacious sites.

The scheme would also result in additional hardstanding to the front of the host property to accommodate parking spaces. Whilst this may be acceptable in isolation and could potentially be achieved under permitted development rights, coupled with the additional dwelling it would further emphasise the increased built form on the site.

I acknowledge that some surrounding plots are narrower than the existing plots at 27 and [address] and often have reduced gaps between the side elevation of properties and the site boundaries. There is also some variation in the design of surrounding development, including both detached and semi- detached dwellings. However, these properties are not read within the same context as corner plots in the area. As outlined, the corner plots have a largely replicated layout that differs from the other properties along [address] and [address]. In any case, the resultant plot at the host property would be narrower than the majority of surrounding plots within the area.

I acknowledge that some of the properties situated on the bend in the road and at the corner junctions benefit from extensions, which may somewhat disrupt the sense of symmetry. However, their scale and form is not so substantial to result in the pair of dwellings losing their original form. Additionally, an extension is not directly comparable to an independent property sat within its own plot.

The host property benefits from a lawful development certificate for a hip to gable roof extension (Ref: 24/04043/PLUD). This is however of a substantially smaller scale than the proposed development and largely maintains the gap between the side of the dwelling and the side boundary. It is therefore not directly comparable to the proposed development. The appellant also suggests that a similar sized extension would likely be approved and further options for a side extension could be possible under permitted development. I however have limited information regarding this before me. In any case, an extension is again not directly comparable to an independent property sat within its own plot. I have afforded this consideration limited weight in favour of the appeal.

I do not agree that the proposed development would be largely screened from view by adjacent houses and their gardens. It would front onto the highway and would be readily visible from the street scene directly in front of it. Whilst some design features and the proposed materials would reflect surrounding development, this would not overcome the harm outlined above in relation to the character of the existing pair of properties, the reduced sense of spaciousness and the reduced plot size at the host property. I am also not satisfied that a planning condition to ensure additional landscaping could overcome this harm. Whilst planning policy broadly promotes an efficient use of land, it also seeks to ensure that development positively contributes to the character and appearance of an area.

Overall, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would substantially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore fail to accord with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) and Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has specifically drawn my attention to the effect of the proposed development on the occupiers of [address] (No.29) and [address] (No.34). I have considered the effect on these properties below.

The front building line of the proposed dwelling would sit broadly in line with the side boundary of No. 29 (between No.29 and No.34). Given this, the rear garden area and rear windows of No.29 would face the parking area of the proposed dwelling. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be visible from the garden area and rear windows, the outlook would not be dominated or materially harmed by it.

The proposed dwelling would however sit adjacent to the rear boundary of No. 34. As a result of the reduced separation distance between the boundary and the proposed dwelling, coupled with its height and bulk, the dwelling would dominate the outlook from the garden area of No.34. This would affect the occupier’s enjoyment of their outdoor amenity space, harming their living conditions. The proposed dwelling would also dominate the outlook from the rear windows of No.34, however the evidence before me does not indicate what these windows serve. I am therefore unable to conclude if the effect on the outlook from these windows would result in material harm to the living conditions of occupiers.

Given the separation distances and the positioning of the proposed dwelling, which does not completely surround either No. 29 and No.34, it would not result in material harm to the provision of daylight at No.29 and No.34.

Regarding sunlight, any loss of sunlight to the rear garden and rear windows of No.34 would be limited to the later afternoon/evening time. Given the orientation of the site and the path of the sun, it would be largely unaffected throughout the morning and part of the afternoon time. Furthermore, the roof slope facing No.34 would further reduce any impact. Given this, any loss of sunlight would be minimal and would not result in material harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No. 34.

Any loss of sunlight to No.29 would also be limited to the later afternoon/evening time and would be further reduced by the positioning of the proposed dwelling to the north of the side boundary of No.29. Overall, I do not consider than any loss of sunlight to No.29 would result in material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers.

To conclude on the main issue, the scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No.29 and No.[address] of the provision of natural light. It would also not result in unacceptable harm to the outlook of neighbouring residents at No.29. It would however result in a loss of outlook from the rear garden of No.34, resulting in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers. Therefore, as a whole, the scheme would be contrary to Policy 37 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The site is not located within a conservation area, and the property is not a listed building. The proposed dwelling may meet the London space standards and not result in any overlooking to neighbouring properties. These matters are however neutral considerations and would not weigh in favour of, nor against the appeal.

The appellant outlines how the Council has a five-year housing land supply of 2.96 years. The Council outline in its appeal statement how an appeal decision from October 2024 concluded that it had a supply of 2.4 years. For the purposes of this appeal, I have therefore used the lower figure of 2.4 years as a worst-case scenario. This is a significant shortfall that would potentially affect young people trying to buy properties, employment and social mobility. In these circumstances paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

There is some dispute between the main parties regarding the number of housing completions in the Council area. The appellant alleges that in 2023/2024 168 houses were completed in Bromley, whereas the Council alleges that there were 33,801 completions in the same year. The appellant also outlines how in 2020/2021 17% of units were on larger sites and according to the Council’s July 2024 Housing delivery action plan, delivery rates are 52%. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. I have proceeded on this basis.

There is nothing before me to suggest that there are any policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance that provide a strong reason for refusing the development under paragraph 11d)(i). Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11d(ii) applies such that 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 Framework taken as a whole.

There is dispute between the main parties as to whether the site is a brownfield site. It is not within my remit to formally determine any lawful use of land. Nonetheless, for the purposes of considering the public benefits of the scheme, I have treated the scheme as making use of brownfield land.

The scheme would make a small but important contribution to the housing land supply, providing a dwelling on a small site, in an accessible location close to schools, open spaces and shops. The dwelling may be suitable as a starter home or for those wishing to downsize. The appellant also suggests that it would be delivered quickly. It would comply with Part M4(2) building regulations and ensure some social and economic benefits throughout its construction and lifetime, however given the scale of the development, these would be relatively limited. It would also incorporate some landscaping which would likely contribute to ecology and biodiversity.

Overall, the small scale of the development means that I afford the provision of new housing, along with the other benefits listed above, moderate weight in favour of the proposed development.

Accordingly, I find that the adverse impacts arising from the development in terms its effect on the character and appearance of the area, and the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No. 34 with regard to outlook significantly and demonstrably outweigh the moderate weight attributed to the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in these circumstances.

Whilst planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes, I consider that substantial harm would be caused, for the reasons set out above.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.