Appeal 6000611

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.

I have omitted narrative wording from the description of development above for clarity and relevance purposes. It does not change any element of the appeal scheme and so would not affect the ability of the main parties to make their cases in respect thereof.

Revised plans were received during the life of the planning application and relate to drawing references P014 – [name], P18 – [name] and P015 – [name]. The Council’s decision was based on them, and I have therefore taken them into account in my recommendation.

The existing single storey side and rear extensions have been demolished. The detached outbuilding shown on the proposed plans has been fully erected, and the swimming pool was under construction at the time of my site visit. A smaller outbuilding was also present but does not correspond with the rebuilt/refurbished pool house shown on the plans, in terms of its appearance or location. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 21 and [address] (No. 21 and No. 25), and b) the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site sits within a row of large, detached dwellings with a pronounced staggered arrangement, where the land slopes down gently from No. 21 to No. 25. The front elevation of No. 21’s two storey front projection is therefore positioned behind the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling, with the front elevation of the appeal dwelling sited behind the main rear elevation of No. 25. [name]. 21 and [address] to the shared side boundaries with the appeal site.

Occupiers of No. 25 are already subject to views of the full side elevation of the existing dwelling from their rear openings and patio/garden. However, the proposal would have a much deeper, taller and bulkier form. The increase in its scale and massing, combined with its close proximity to the shared boundary, would therefore lead to an unacceptable reduction in the quality of outlook from these areas. Its looming and imposing presence would be further accentuated by the staggered relationship between the properties and the appeal site being on higher ground. Views from No. 25’s rear openings and patio/garden would therefore be dominated by the substantial and continuous side elevation of the new dwelling, to a far greater degree than the current situation. This would unacceptably diminish the quality of experience from within their rear outdoor space and the rooms served by the rear openings.

At the time of my site visit, the vegetation along the shared boundary did not appear to be extensive and was not in leaf due to winter. As such, views between the appeal site and No. 25 were readily available. The submitted plans indicate that this neighbour has an approved rear extension. I have not been provided with details, but even if it were built to the extent as shown, it would simply bring No. 25’s rear openings and immediate rear garden nearer. As such, the harm identified would only be further intensified.

Due to the proposed dwelling’s substantial depth, views from the raised terrace towards No. 25’s rear openings and patio/garden would be limited and difficult to obtain. Adequate side screening is also proposed and would restrict views further. The positioning of the proposed rear balconies mean they would be well screened from this neighbour by the new dwelling. The sightlines from both the terrace and balconies would be confined mainly to the lower part of No. 25’s rear garden. Accordingly, these raised external areas would not result in unacceptable harm to the privacy of the occupants of No. 25.

The proposal would be positioned closer to and forward of No. 21’s two storey front projection. However, their principal outlook towards their front driveway and garden would be retained. A first floor setback from the front elevation is also proposed, with the new dwelling to be set in from the shared boundary. This would ensure that the outlook from No. 21’s front projection’s windows would remain broadly comparable to the previous situation, where it was already enclosed by a garage and tall boundary fence to one side.

Views from the proposed rear balconies into No. 21’s rear garden would be limited, as the depth of their property would provide substantial screening. Whilst some overlooking towards their ground floor side openings and side path would be possible, these would be obscured by the existing boundary treatments. Additionally, views into these areas are already possible from the existing first floor rear windows. The balconies would also be modest in size, and as No. 21’s first floor side windows are obscure glazed or narrow in shape, no intrusive overlooking would occur. The appeal scheme would, therefore, not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 21, with regard to outlook or privacy.

However, and for the reasons set out, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 25, with specific regard to outlook. Consequently, the appeal scheme would be contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

[address] Road is in a residential area and primarily consists of large, detached properties, with spacious front and rear gardens. The majority have a traditional appearance, however, there is a varied design, with a mix in sizes, materials, roof forms and individual architectural features. Together, all these elements contribute positively to the diverse and suburban character and appearance of the area.

The proposed dwelling would not achieve a one metre space from the side boundary shared with No. 21 at ground floor, contrary to Policy 8 of the BLP. However, the previous single storey garage extended even closer to this boundary, meaning the degree of non-compliance would be comparable to the previous arrangement. A one metre gap would also be provided at first floor level. As such, whilst the side gaps would be narrower than at present, the appeal scheme would still retain sufficient separation on both sides. The smaller gaps would also correlate with the irregular spacing along the street, where some dwellings are separated by similarly narrow breaks.

The Council has referred to a dismissed appeal (Ref. 3295280) which had concerned the application of Policy 8 of the BLP. However, this related to a first floor side extension at a different site and is not comparable to the appeal scheme, which is for a new dwelling.

Although the proposal would be substantial in size, it would sit comfortably within the street and would not appear noticeably different from many neighbouring properties, many of which are of a comparable scale or distinctly larger. Its considerable depth would also reflect the footprint of the nearby Number [address] (No. 17), which is similarly large and deep. Given the many examples of substantial detached properties in the area, its overall size would not appear inconsistent or inappropriate.

The proposed street scene plan indicates that, whilst taller than the existing dwelling and with Nos. 21 and 25, the proposal would align with the ridgeline of Number [address]. Its eaves height would also correspond with the existing dwelling, which already has a higher eaves line than Nos. 21 and 25. Additionally, whilst accommodation would be provided in the roof space, the proposed dwelling would clearly present a two storey appearance and would have a consistent scale with the surrounding dwellings.

Its design would be more grandiose, due to its crown roof, repeating vertical windows with headers and sills, and decorative stone entrance. However, [address] Road lacks a unified architectural style. As such, the design would not, in itself, be harmful to the diverse character and appearance of the area. Moreover, the proposal would be similar in style to No. 17.

The dormers would be well contained within the front roof and appear as subordinate features. They would be vertically aligned with the front elevation windows below and would not create the impression of a three storey building, given their small scale. Front dormers are not uncommon in the area, with several properties along [address] Road featuring them.

The proposed balconies would be of limited proportions and sit comfortably within the rear elevation. The raised terrace would not extend beyond the main side or rear elevations. The enclosing railings would be typical in appearance and be similar to those currently used on front railing boundaries elsewhere in the street. Whilst raised terraces and balconies are not common in the area, their absence does not make them inherently harmful given the above, particularly as they would be of small scale.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would not conflict with Policies 4 and 37 of the BLP and Policies D3 and H2 of the LP. Together, and amongst other things, these policies require development proposals to be of a high quality design that responds appropriately to its context and provides adequate separation, while supporting well‐designed new homes on small sites.

Policy D1 of the LP has been referred to in the reason for refusal, but this relates to Boroughs undertaking area assessments and how to use them to establish an area’s capacity for growth. I do not find this policy to be applicable to this main issue. The policies mentioned above are sufficient to make a decision against the development plan thereon. Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework

The Council cannot currently demonstrate the supply of housing sites as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d)(ii) indicates that, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this case, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 25, with specific regard to outlook. This would be significant and enduring and conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework. I therefore afford this substantial weight. The proposal would provide a bespoke family home, but this would be of private value with limited social and economic benefits arising from its occupation. There would similarly be limited and temporary economic benefits associated with construction activity. While the housing land supply shortfall carries moderate weight, the appeal scheme would deliver no net increase in dwellings, as it is a replacement.

Although the appeal site occupies a sustainable location, it would amount to an effective use of land and be sufficiently well designed, the proposal would not deliver affordable housing and would result in the identified harm in so being the above. When assessed against the Framework as a whole, its adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the development. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The Council has confirmed that a site visit was undertaken as part of the planning application process. The amendments made to the scheme following a refusal for a similar proposal (Ref: 24/04276/FULL1) and the representations of support received would not overcome the identified harm, for the above reasons. The appellant is willing to accept a condition to restrict noise arising from the swimming pool and associated plant equipment. However, this would not fully address the concerns set out, which extend to wider matters. Moreover, the lack of objection from the Council’s consultees does not equate to an absence of harm.

[name] have found in the appellant’s favour on the second main issue, this would be a neutral matter and not capable of weighing against the harm I have found in regard to the first. Material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan, with which the scheme would conflict for the reasons I have set out. I therefore recommend the appeal should be dismissed.

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