Appeal 6001397

The appeal is dismissed.

The description on the application form does not accurately describe the proposed development. I have therefore amended it to that shown on the decision notice and am satisfied that dealing with the appeal on this basis has not prejudiced the interests of any party.

During the appeal process, a revised sketch drawing was submitted by the appellant. However, it is not to scale and lacks sufficient detail to assess compliance with nationally described space standards or the quality of accommodation. In addition, it has not been subject to consultation with the Council or interested parties, and to rely on it would raise concerns regarding procedural fairness and natural justice. Accordingly, it has not been taken into account in my determination.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No [address] (No.13), with particular regard to daylight, sunlight and outlook; and • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and external amenity space.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey commercial building occupying a prominent corner position at the junction of [address] and [address], within the defined town centre. Its scale, proportions and corner articulation make a positive contribution in marking the transition between the commercial character of the [address] and the residential character of [address] to the north.

[address] is generally varied in appearance and character. While the prevailing built form is largely of two to three storeys, there are examples of larger commercial premises, including the adjacent [address] (No.145-

and the [name] building directly to the south. To the east, on the opposite side of [address], is the three-storey [address] (No.165-169). In contrast, [address] is characterised by predominantly two-storey terraced dwellings, giving rise to a distinctly domestic character.

The proposal would replace the existing building with an extended basement and a part four, part five-storey building, comprising commercial uses at lower levels and residential accommodation above. While the upper floor would be set back from the [address] elevation, it would rise to full height at the rear, albeit within a pitched roof form. Notwithstanding a slight set-down, the eastern elevation would exceed the roof ridge height of No. 13 and project beyond its established front building line.

[address], the proposed height would broadly align with the adjacent No.145-159, thereby reducing the existing disparity in scale along this part of the frontage. However, the proposal would appear noticeably taller than No.165- 169 to the east and introduce a degree of visual imbalance across [address], particularly in views from the south and east. Although the setback of the upper storey would reduce the perceived mass to some extent, it would not sufficiently mitigate the scheme’s overall dominant and overbearing presence on the junction.

Furthermore, the increased scale of the proposal would be very apparent in views from [address] and the [address] looking north, where it would introduce a building of materially greater height and bulk than the prevailing two-storey terraced form. In so doing, it would fail to provide a sympathetic transition, resulting in an abrupt and incongruous juxtaposition of built form. The projection and increased height, extending beyond the established building line and roof ridge of No. 13 would further highlight this overbearing impact.

I do not agree with the appellant that [address] acts as a buffer between the town centre and surrounding areas. Rather, the appeal site occupies a transitional position and should respond positively to both adjoining contexts. The proposal fails to do so, as its scale, height and massing do not provide a proportionate or legible transition between the differing urban character areas resulting in a poorly integrated and unduly dominant addition.

The appellant places significant reliance on comparisons with adjacent buildings. [name].145-159 is of comparable height, it forms part of a more continuous commercial frontage. In contrast, the appeal site occupies a prominent corner and transitional location, where greater sensitivity to the adjoining lower-scale residential context is required. Limited information has been provided regarding the approval of the [name] building; however, its context is markedly different as it is not positioned on a corner plot and does not mediate between contrasting urban character areas. Such buildings do not justify the scale proposed given the site’s sensitive corner position and its direct relationship with the lower-scale residential dwellings of [address].

The Council has not identified any harm to the Grade II Listed Convent of [name] ([address]) and based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I agree with that assessment. The proposal would not affect important views of the asset or the ability to appreciate its significance. The result is that the duties under the Act to preserve the listed building or its setting1, which I have given considerable importance and weight to, would be met.

Nonetheless and for the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) (GLP), both of which require development to respond positively to local character and achieve a high standard of design.

I also find that the scheme would be contrary to the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (the SPD), which collectively emphasise the importance of good design and proportionate development.

The submitted daylight and sunlight assessment indicates that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon neighbouring occupiers. Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied, in quantitative terms, with that assessment.

I have had regard to the appellant’s position that compliance with daylight and sunlight guidance implies acceptable outlook. However, such guidance does not directly assess enclosure or the qualitative aspects of outlook. The proposal would introduce a building of up to five storeys immediately adjacent to No. 13, significantly increasing the scale and massing at the shared boundary. This would result in a harmful sense of enclosure when experienced from a ground floor kitchen window, a first-floor window which appears to serve a habitable room, as well as from the area of uncovered rear yard.

The appellant contends that the relationship is already constrained by existing development and that the first-floor window would view the proposal at an angle. [name] acknowledge the existing relationship, the presence of existing built form does not justify the introduction of additional harm. The proposal would materially intensify the sense of enclosure and dominance.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 13, contrary to Policy D3 of the LP and Policy DH(b) of the GLP, which collectively seek, amongst other things, to protect neighbouring amenity.

The scheme would also be contrary to the design objectives of the SPD, which emphasise the need for development to respond appropriately to its context and to avoid overbearing or dominant relationships. 1 Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The Council raises concerns about the quality of the accommodation. In particular, the only bedroom of Units 1.02 and 2.02 would rely on obscure-glazed windows, severely limiting the quality of outlook from these habitable rooms. As a consequence, it is my view that the quality of accommodation would be poor regardless of the housing tenure. While the appellant has suggested that this could be addressed by condition, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a satisfactory alternative layout could be achieved. In the absence of a clear and deliverable alternative and having regard to the test for conditions set out in the Framework, I cannot be satisfied that this matter could be adequately addressed by condition.

The proposal would not provide private amenity space. However, given the highly accessible town centre location, proximity to public open space, the absence of family-sized units, and noting that most units would exceed minimum internal floor area standards, I find that this deficiency would not be so harmful in this particular instance as to warrant dismissal.

In light of the above, I conclude that the poor-quality outlook for Units 1.02 and 2.02 would result in harmful living conditions for future occupiers. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy D6 of the LP and Policies H5 & DH1 of the GLP, which collectively seek, amongst other things, a high standard of residential quality.

For the same reason, the scheme would also conflict with the guidance within the Mayor of London’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016).

The proposal would increase the level of retail floorspace at the site and provide a modest benefit to the vitality and function of the town centre. Although the appellant has referred to the Eltham Town Centre Masterplan (2012), this document is not before me in evidence and therefore carries limited weight in my determination.

I recognise that there is a significant need to boost housing supply, as set out in the Framework and LP. This is an important consideration which weighs in favour of the proposal. However, despite the proposal delivering a modest number of smaller units, it would not make a substantial contribution to meeting identified housing needs, particularly family housing. In light of this, whilst I consider the scheme would bring about moderate benefits, I conclude that these would not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of character and appearance, living conditions for the occupiers of No 13 and the quality of accommodation provided for future occupiers.

I recognise that the proposal accords with various other development plan policies, including those in relation to the location of new development. However, the absence of harm or conflict with these other policies is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

In view of the above, I conclude that the proposal does not accord with the development plan and that other material considerations do not indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with this.

[name] have concluded that there is no harm to; (1) neighbouring occupiers at No 13 in respect of daylight and sunlight; and (2) future occupiers in respect of amenity space provision, I am nonetheless satisfied that the harm identified in respect of the main issues relating to character and appearance, harm to the living conditions of neighbours at No. 13 from loss of outlook and future occupiers from poor quality outlook are sufficient to still justify dismissal of the appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.