Appeal 6000618

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to the provision of external amenity space; • the effect of the proposed scheme on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, with particular regard to privacy; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt as identified in the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP). Policy 49 of the BLP and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) are relevant. Together, these seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development unless very special circumstances clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm.

Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework list the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. These include the limited infilling or the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (paragraph 154(g)). Policy 49 of the BLP precedes the Framework and includes a more stringent test for assessing whether such development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt. Therefore, I assess the proposal against the exception in paragraph 154(g)) of the Framework.

The definition of PDL in the Framework refers to land which is occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land. It includes land comprising large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed. It excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens. The appellant considers that the site is PDL as it comprises garden land outside the built-up area and, in any event, is not a typical garden as it contains substantial buildings and hardsurfacing.

As set out in the Framework, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and often connotates the absence of development. It is an open textured term and can have both spatial and visual dimensions. [address] has found that the visual effects on openness are a matter of planning judgement.

The appeal site forms part of the grounds for [site address] which differs to other houses along the street as it includes a long strip of land at the end of the road. The appeal site is predominantly vegetated garden, though there are some hard paved areas and a large timber shed at the eastern end. The proposal is for six dwellings and associated driveways, gardens and turning areas. As the site is currently predominantly grassed and undeveloped, the introduction of six permanent dwellings would lead to a significant loss of spatial openness.

There is a belt of mixed species protected trees to the north of the site which separates it from a field containing public rights of way (PROWs) and provides a green backdrop to residential development along [address]. There are also some sizeable sycamore trees at the western end of the site, beyond which is a recreation ground. A PROW runs along the southern boundary of the site.

It is indicated that the proposed development would be enclosed by existing built form on one side and mature planting on the other sides. However, the development would be highly visible from [address], neighbouring properties and the adjacent PROW, substantially harming visual openness. It would also be evident in glimpsed views through the trees from the adjoining recreation ground and the PROWs in the nearby field, particularly in autumn and winter months when many trees are not in leaf.

The effect on openness is not only related to the size of the proposal but also its purpose and the intensity of its use. The introduction of six dwellings on the site would result in the creation of additional gardens and domestic paraphernalia. Further, new driveways and hardstandings would be formed and used for the manoeuvring, turning and parking of vehicles associated with six houses. Such features and activities would also substantially affect spatial and visual openness compared to the existing use of the site.

Therefore, regardless of whether the site is PDL, the proposal would substantially harm the openness of the Green Belt and would not fall within the exception in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

The parties disagree about the contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt outlined in paragraph 143 of the Framework. Nevertheless, the appellant does not argue that the site is grey belt, the definition of which depends on the contribution of the land to certain Green Belt purposes. Further, no case is put forward that the proposal would be limited infilling in a village. As such, no case is made that the scheme would meet the exceptions in paragraphs 154(e) or 155 of the Framework. Consequently, the references to appeals allowed at Smallford, Fifield and Colney Heath1 have limited relevance to the current proposal.

The appeal site lies at the end of [address], comprising garden land with some trees and a large outbuilding. [address] is predominantly characterised by semi-detached and terraced houses following a similar building line with long rear gardens, giving it a uniform frontage and spacious appearance to the rear.

The proposal is to extend the road, forming a driveway running alongside the PROW and properties at the end of [address] with six dwellings positioned along it. Whilst the new houses on plots 1, 5 and 6 would have a similar orientation to the neighbouring dwellings, along with plot 4, they would sit significantly rearward of them. The buildings on plots 2, 3 and 4 would be at roughly right angles to the properties on [address], with those on plots 2 and 3 lying substantially forward of the neighbouring dwellings. There is no dispute about the scale and appearance of the proposed houses. Nonetheless, due to their position and orientation, the proposed development would be substantially at odds with the existing regular, linear pattern of development along the road.

The proposed plots would have a similar width to others in the area, with space maintained between the buildings and an overall density in accordance with the LP parameters. However, the new properties would have much smaller and more irregularly shaped gardens than the neighbouring dwellings on [address], and the proposed houses would not align with the existing built development, with several located close to existing rear gardens. Given the plot sizes and configuration of the proposed scheme relative to the surrounding properties, the proposal would appear as a cramped form of development at odds with the rear spacious character. Although the Framework does not seek to prevent innovation or change, such as increased densities, the proposal would not be sympathetic to local character.

The appellant indicates that a comprehensive landscape strategy would provide an attractive green setting. Nonetheless, whilst the retained trees and adjacent tree belt would maintain the green backdrop, the frontage would be dominated by hardsurfacing, buildings and fences with limited opportunity for planting in this area. This would create a harsh urban environment on existing largely undeveloped, vegetated land, particularly evident from [address] and the neighbouring properties. 1 Appeal refsAPP/B1930/W/22/3300239, APP/T0355/W/22/3304595 and APP/B1930/W/24/3342701

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policies D3 and H2 of the LP and Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the BLP. Together, these require housing developments to respect local character, provide a high standard of layout and positively respond to local distinctiveness, amongst other things.

Policy D4 of the LP relates to processes and actions required to deliver good design. As it does not directly link to the harm identified, I find no specific conflict with Policy D4 in reaching my conclusion.

Policy D6 of the LP emphasises the qualitative aspects of housing development. It requires the provision of at least 7sqm private outdoor space for each dwelling which should be at least 1.5m deep and wide. This should be useable and have a balance of openness and protection, appropriate for its outlook and orientation. Policy 4 of the BLP seeks the provision of sufficient external, private amenity space that is accessible and practical.

The proposed properties would have private rear gardens exceeding the amount required by LP Policy D6. Due to the location of the proposed rear garden for plot 1 at the more open eastern end of the site with only a small part of it affected by the overhanging canopy of a protected oak tree, it would provide a sufficiently useable and practical space for the future occupiers of this house.

Nevertheless, the gardens for the other plots would be largely under the overhanging canopies of retained trees. Further, the gardens for plots 2, 3 and 4 would have a relatively limited depth, sandwiched between the belt of trees to the north and the proposed two storey houses and 1.[address] boarded fences. Thus, the proposal would create very enclosed, overshadowed outdoor spaces for occupants of plots 2-6. Although the shading would be largely seasonal when trees are in full leaf, this would be in the spring and summer months when future occupiers are most likely to wish to use their gardens. As such, the proposed gardens for plots 2-6 would provide poor quality, impractical spaces which would fail to meet the needs of future residents.

It is indicated that occupiers of the proposed dwellings would have access to a footpath network and public open space nearby which provide opportunities for informal play, dog walking and outdoor leisure, supporting health and wellbeing. However, these have a different function to a private space and do not replace the need to provide practical, useable private amenity space.

Therefore, whilst there would be acceptable provision of external amenity space for plot 1, I conclude that the proposal would provide an unacceptable standard of external amenity space for plots 2-6, creating unsatisfactory living conditions for the future occupants of those plots. This would be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP and Policies 4 and 37 of the BLP. Together, these require development to be of a high standard of layout and provide sufficient practical private amenity space, amongst other things.

Policy T5 of the LP relates to cycling provision and parking. However, this does not directly link to the harm identified and therefore I find no specific conflict with Policy T5 in concluding on this matter.

Dwellings nearby at 37C and 37D Derry Downs (Nos 37C and 37D) and 39 and [site address] (Nos 39 and 44) have a broadly east-west orientation with rear gardens close to the appeal site.

The proposed houses on plots 1 and 5 would have a similar orientation to properties in Derry Downs and [address], with upper floor flank bathroom or en-suite windows which could be obscure glazed to avoid overlooking from them. These new dwellings would be close to the rear curtilages at Nos 37C and 44. Nonetheless, due to their orientation and position relative to the adjacent dwellings, there would be no harmful overlooking of the rear outdoor spaces and windows of the neighbouring properties from the new houses on these plots.

The position of the proposed buildings on plots 2 and 3 would be such that their front windows would face the front parking areas and sides of the houses at Nos 39 and 44. As such, there would be no unacceptable overlooking of the neighbouring rear curtilages from them.

The close board boundary fence would ensure that the ground floor front rooms at plot [address] by. The relative angle and distance of the proposed first floor front bedroom window on this plot to neighbouring houses mean that there would not be harmful overlooking of rear rooms at Nos 37C, 37D and 39. However, as this opening would be only a short distance from and face directly towards the rear gardens at Nos 37D and 39, the appeal scheme would cause an undue loss of privacy to the occupiers of these properties when using their rear outdoor spaces.

It is stated that additional planting could mitigate the potential for overlooking. However, as the proposed driveway would occupy much of the area between plot 4 and the neighbouring properties, there would be little space for this, and it would be impractical to provide the scale of landscaping required for this purpose.

It has also been put to me that a condition could be imposed requiring the front facing first floor windows to be reorientated or the introduction of obscure glazing to prevent direct views into neighbouring rear gardens. Nevertheless, I must determine the proposal on its merits based on the plans before me. Further, whilst the installation of obscure glazing would overcome the loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers, as the only window opening in this sizeable habitable room, it would create an oppressive environment with minimal outlook. Therefore, I do not consider that such conditions would be reasonable.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed scheme would harm the privacy of occupiers at Nos 37D and 39 but not cause harmful overlooking of Nos 37C and

This would be contrary to Policy D3 of the LP and Policies 4 and 37 of the BLP. Together, these require development to achieve a high standard of design and layout, and respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including ensuring there is no harm to privacy, amongst other things.

Policy D4 of the LP does not directly link to harm to neighbouring living conditions. Therefore, I find no specific conflict with Policy D4 in reaching my conclusion on this matter. Other considerations

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the housing supply and highlights the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make, whilst supporting development which makes efficient use of land.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply required by the Framework. It refers to a 3.99 year supply equating to 3,245 units in the period 2021/22 to 2025/26. However, a subsequent appeal decision in October 20242 concluded that the Council had a 2.4 year supply equating to 2,628 dwellings when taking account of the LP target and factoring in delivery shortfalls since 2019/20.

[name] result for 2023 confirms that housing delivery over the previous three years fell below the 75% referred to in the Framework.

In allowing appeals for housing in Smallfield and Hadleigh3, Inspectors gave very substantial or substantial weight to the contribution those developments would make to the Council’s housing land supply. Nevertheless, those proposals were for 270 and 173 dwellings respectively which are not comparative in scale to the scheme currently before me.

The proposed development of six family homes would make more efficient use of the land, making some difference to addressing the housing shortfall in Bromley. Therefore, I attribute modest weight to this benefit in this instance.

There would also be some economic and social benefits during construction when the development would provide employment and investment and once occupied when future residents would use local shops and services. The appellant considers that the proposed development would contribute towards economic growth and support services in Orpington Town Centre, within the Cray Valley Renewal Area identified in the BLP. Nonetheless, given the relatively small scale of the scheme, these benefits would be limited.

The appellant states that the new homes would be within walking distance of services and public transport. However, the site has a PTAL of 1b which means it has relatively poor access to public transport, and the [name] is a 20-minute walk away. Whilst there is a recreation ground very close by, other facilities are some distance away so access to services carries limited weight.

The Biodiversity Net Gain Report and Calculation indicates that the proposal would achieve over 18% biodiversity net gain. This is on the assumption that the developer would provide new habitats to the conditions outlined for the ecological enhancement measures specified in the submission. This carries weight in favour 2 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/W/24/3340223 3 Appeal Refs: APP/M3645/W/24/3355743 and APP/M1520/W/24/3351658 of the proposed development. Nevertheless, given its small scale, this benefit would be limited.

The appellant argues that the proposal would provide landscape enhancements. However, whilst the two best trees would be retained, the Site Tree Survey & [name] indicates that 22 existing low value trees would be removed to facilitate the development. Although two new trees are indicated on the proposed plans, given the loss of so many existing trees and the limited space available for new planting, any landscape enhancement is likely to be limited.

The appellant refers to other residential developments proposed nearby at [address], [name] and [address], [name] Cray4. Nonetheless, as one was for a non-material amendment which was withdrawn and the other concerned the prior approval of agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses, it is unclear how they relate to the proposal currently before me which limits the weight I can accord them.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including internal space provision, accessible housing, infrastructure, drainage, flood risk, energy efficiency, land contamination, construction management, air quality, protected species, impacts on heritage assets and trees, cycle and refuse storage, parking and fire safety. Further, although the Highway Development Engineer made some comments, including seeking further information on several matters, this did not amount to an objection to the proposal. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the scheme.

The appellant’s general concerns about their engagement with the Council is a matter between those parties and it does not in this instance have any bearing on my determination of this appeal.

The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the area, unacceptable living conditions for future occupants and harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I give modest weight to the provision of additional dwellings and limited weight to the provision of economic and social benefits, accessibility of the site, biodiversity net gain, landscape enhancement and other developments nearby. However, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by 4 Planning application refs: 18/04548/AMD3 and 25/01808/CUETC3 reason of inappropriateness and other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it would be contrary to Policy G2 of the LP, Policy 49 of the BLP and the Framework.

Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged as the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In such circumstances, this states that development should be approved unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development. In this appeal, the application of the Framework’s Green Belt policies provides a strong reason to refuse the development. The proposal would also conflict with Policies D3, D6, H2 and G2 of the LP and Policies 3, 4, 37 and 49 of the BLP.

Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework and the very special circumstances test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.