Appeal 6000740

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for [name] 4 Bedroom 8 [address] at [site address] , Orpington, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00572/FULL1, subject to the conditions in the attached 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 main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: - The character and appearance of the area and - The living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 88) with specific regard to outlook.

The appeal site is a parcel of land situated on [site address] , a street set within a residential setting consisting of a variety of residential dwellings as well as [name]. The appeal site also sits directly adjacent to the Knoll Area of Special Residential Character (‘the ASRC’) which consists of four streets including [site address] . [site address] ’s contribution to the ASRC is described as featuring typical detached two storey inter-war housing inset within substantial plots, many of which in the neo-Tudor style featuring hipped roofs with front or side pitched roof elevations. My observations on site concur with this assessment noting properties surrounding the appeal site are set in plots with a set-back from the highway and generous gardens to their rears. Also adjoining the site is [address] which whilst not within the ASRC is largely similar in its residential character.

The proposed dwelling would be two-storey and would share the hipped roof form and front gable design of neighbouring dwellings. The proposal therefore includes characteristics that would enable it to assimilate well with its surroundings. Whilst it would be undoubtedly the case that the proposed dwelling would be narrower than some of the other properties on [site address] , this does not automatically translate to visual harm. The proposed dwelling would be appropriately designed and would sit comfortably within its plot leading it to assist in adding to the visual interest of the street scene.

Whilst the proposal would result in the introduction of an additional dwelling to the street, a gap between the dwellings would still be maintained, albeit smaller than the existing arrangement. Be that as it may sufficient space would remain to maintain the sense of separation and rhythm that is characteristic of the adjacent ASRC. Furthermore, the dwelling’s siting would positively respond to the topography of [site address] . It would also mirror the height and massing of the neighbouring dwelling No.89 [site address] . The proposal would therefore complement the street scene in this respect.

Consequently, the proposed dwelling would contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would accord with the relevant provisions of Policies 4, 8, 37 and 44 of the Bromley Local Plan (LP) (2019) as well as Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). These seek, amongst other things, for development proposals to be of a high standard of design and layout.

The appeal dwelling would be situated in the plot adjacent to No.88 and as a result would be visible from its rear and side windows. However, due to the orientation of No.88, being angled away from the appeal dwelling, the proposal would not be overbearing. Moreover, the proposal would not detrimentally affect the neighbour’s outlook from either of its ground floor kitchen or dining room side windows. Turning to the patio doors serving the dining room, views of the proposed dwelling could be gained from these due to its siting. However, as a result of the side window also serving this room providing a dual aspect, I am satisfied that the overall outlook to the dining room would not be substantively harmed to the detriment of the occupier’s living conditions. In addition, I note that both the rear windows to the first floor of No.88 serve non habitable rooms, causing no loss of outlook.

The appeal dwelling would be sited higher than its neighbour No.88 by virtue of the topography of the site. However, whilst it is higher this does not automatically equate to a harmful relationship between the dwellings. The proposed dwelling would be sufficiently set away from the common boundary and due to its orientation, the outlook from the occupants of No.88 would generally remain unchanged. No.88 is also served by a relatively expansive wrap around garden, and I am also satisfied that the proposed development would not have a negative impact on user’s living conditions in this respect beyond the existing situation.

Therefore, the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with particular regard to outlook. As such, the proposal would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and [name] 4 and 37 which all seek, amongst other matters, for development to respect the amenity of neighbouring buildings and their occupants.

Concerns have been raised by third parties regarding the potential for the proposed development to harm the living conditions for neighbouring occupiers in regard to privacy, loss of light and over shadowing. However, although I am mindful that the second reason for refusal addressed the impact on living conditions with specific regard to outlook alone, I am nevertheless satisfied that the proposal would also not result in harm to neighbouring residential amenities in respect to privacy, loss of light and over shadowing.

Interested parties have also raised concerns regarding the landowner’s rejection to them buying the appeal site in order to use it as private garden space. However, this is not a matter for consideration within the appeal process.

Several third parties have highlighted concerns that the proposed development will result in highway safety and parking issues. However, the highway authority has raised no highway safety or parking issues as a result of the development, and I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion. As a result, I consider the proposals to accord with the development plan in this respect.

[name] (BNG) is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. This objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development value of the onsite habitat. This can be achieved through on-site biodiversity gains, registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits. The PPG sets out that the statutory framework for BNG has been designed as a post-permission matter.

In respect of this appeal, the [name] concludes that the proposal would result in a loss of 0.07 biodiversity units translating to a 81.5% net loss of the on-site biodiversity habitat. The appellant suggests that BNG of 10% would be secured through the purchase of off-site biodiversity credits. Whilst there is a preference for on-site gains, off-site biodiversity gains including those arising from the purchase of biodiversity credits, are listed as an appropriate means of mitigation and there is no suggestion that the delivery of BNG off-site would significantly undermine local biodiversity provision.

I note the Council’s and third party’s concerns regarding any clearance work conducted prior to the submission of the application. However, I am satisfied that the [name] and Assessment prepared by Tunley Environmental considers the condition of the site sufficiently, at a post development stage, from both ariel and site photos. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal can provide a policy-compliant net gain in biodiversity. Thus, I find no conflict with the Framework.

I have considered third party’s concerns that the grant of planning permission would set a precedent for other similar developments. However, no directly comparable sites to which this might apply were put forward. In any event, each proposal must be determined on its individual merits, and a generalised concern of this nature does not justify withholding permission in this case.

I note third party comments regarding the absence of development at the site previously and conversations had with the Council. However, such discussions do not appear to be directly related to the proposal, and I have determined the appeal based on its planning merits.

The Council have provided, with it’s statement, suggested conditions should the appeal be allowed. Where necessary I have made revisions to some of the conditions put to me to ensure that they meet the tests in the Framework and PPG, without altering their fundamental aims.

Planning permission is granted subject to the standard 3-year time limit condition for implementation. In addition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans and in the interests of certainty.

Details of ground workings and materials are required in the interests of Character and appearance. A condition requiring Obscure glazing to the bathroom windows is required in the interests of living conditions. The provision of a construction management plan is required in the interests of amenity. A condition securing a Surface water drainage scheme is required in the interests of drainage. A condition securing details of site levels is required in the interests of visual amenity.

The provision of plans securing visibility splays, height of boundary treatments and parking facilities are needed in the interests of highway safety. Details of Hard and [name] is required in the interests of visual amenity. A condition restricting Gas boiler levels is required in order to maintain air quality. A Condition removing specific Permitted Development Rights is required in the interests of character and appearance. I have also attached a condition securing swift boxes in interests of ecology.

Conditions for the submission of further details in relation to bicycle storage arrangements, refuse facilities, hardstanding provision and vehicle turning areas would be unnecessary as it is adequately covered in the details provided.

The appellant has suggested the inclusion of a Greenwall as part of the proposals which the Council consider is required to be secured by condition. However, there is no compelling reasons, in the interests of the area or living conditions, to require such a feature and a condition is therefore unnecessary.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

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

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years, beginning with the date of this decision notice.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s BL/DRG/3541/ 06, BL/DRG/3541/ 08, BL/DRG/3541/ 05, BL/DRG/3541/ 09, BL/DRG/3541/ 02, BL/DRG/3541/ 01 and BL/DRG/3541/ 07

Prior to commencement of above ground works, details (including samples) of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building (which shall include roof cladding, wall facing materials and cladding, window glass, door and window frames, decorative features, rainwater goods and paving where appropriate) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed north facing bathroom and en-suite bathroom windows and the south facing first floor landing window, shall be obscure glazed to a minimum of Pilkington privacy Level 3. These shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. These windows shall subsequently be permanently retained as such.

No development shall commence on site until such time as a Construction and Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. As a minimum the plan shall cover:- (a) Dust mitigation and management measures. (b) The location and operation of plant and wheel washing facilities (c) Measure to reduce construction noise (d) Details of construction traffic movements including cumulative impacts which shall demonstrate the following:- (i) Rationalise travel and traffic routes to and from the site as well as within the site. (ii) Provide full details of the number and time of construction vehicle trips to the site with the intention and aim of reducing the impact of construction related activity. (iii) Measures to deal with safe pedestrian movement. (iv) Full contact details of the site and project manager responsible for day to-day management of the works (v) Parking for operatives during construction period (vi) A swept path drawings for any tight manoeuvres on vehicle routes to and from the site including proposed access and egress arrangements at the site boundary. (e) Hours of operation (f) Other site specific Highways and Environmental Protection issues as requested on a case by case basis (g) The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the details approved under Parts a-f

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved (excluding any ground clearance) a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before the details required are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) to ground, watercourse or sewer in accordance with drainage hierarchy contained within the London Plan Policy 5.13 and the advice contained within the National SuDS Standards. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall: provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay (attenuate) and control the rate of surface water discharged from the site as close to greenfield runoff rates (21/s/ha) as reasonably practicable and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface water The drainage scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved

Prior to commencement of development details of the proposed slab levels of the building(s) and the existing site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.

Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied the new access from [site address] shall be provided with 43m x 2.4m x 43m visibility splays and there shall be no obstruction to visibility in excess of 1m in height within these splays except for trees selected by the Local Planning Authority, and which shall be permanently retained thereafter.

No wall, fence or hedge on the front boundary or on the first 2.5 metres of the flank boundaries shall exceed 1m in height, and these means of enclosure shall be permanently retained as such.

Before occupation of the approved dwelling hereby permitted parking spaces and/or garages and turning space shall be completed in accordance with the details as set out in this planning permission and thereafter shall be kept available for such use and no permitted development whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) or not shall be carried out on the land or garages indicated or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the said land or garages.

Prior to commencement of above ground works details of treatment of all parts on the site not covered by buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be landscaped strictly in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season after completion or first occupation of the development, whichever is the sooner. Details shall include: 1. A scaled plan showing all existing vegetation to be retained and trees and plants to be planted which shall include use of a minimum of 30% native plant species of home grown stock (where possible) and no invasive species; 2. Proposed hardstanding and boundary treatment; 3. A schedule detailing sizes and numbers of all proposed trees/plants; 4. Sufficient specification to endure successful establishment and survival of new planting. (ii) There shall be no excavation or raising or lowering of levels within the prescribed root protection area of retained trees unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (iii) Any new tree(s) that die(s), are/is removed or become(s) severely damaged or diseased shall be replaced and any new planting (other than trees) which dies, is removed, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced. Unless further specific permission has been given by the Local Planning Authority, replacement planting shall be in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no building, structure, extension, enlargement or alteration permitted by Class A, B or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended), shall be erected or made within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the commencement of above ground works, details of the installation of two integral swift nest bricks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in complete accordance with the approved details and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter.