Appeal 6001445

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the development described as the “conversion of lower ground storage into a residential studio unit” at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01891/FULL1, subject to the conditions set out 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.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises a new sunken courtyard for the proposed studio, with a replacement external side staircase. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall [name] main issues in regard to which are a) its effect on the character and appearance of the area; and b) whether it would provide adequate living conditions for its future occupiers, with specific regard to its main entrance layout.

The appeal site relates to a lower ground floor storage unit within a detached property that contains two existing flats on the upper levels. It forms part of a group of three flatted buildings at the [address] complex, all of which share a communal rear garden. Given its continuous extent across the rear, this open outdoor space forms an important and attractive backdrop for [site address] , which is designated as an Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) and therefore makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of it.

The proposal would require the removal of a small portion of the communal rear garden and would alter the appearance of this rear outdoor space. However, the area to be lost would be modest and narrow and would represent a minor change in the context of the wider, extensive and otherwise unincumbered garden. Its open and spacious character would therefore be maintained, with its primary function as a shared garden to remain unchanged for the other residents. Moreover, the other [address] buildings already contain basement level flats with a strip of block paving adjoining their immediate rear elevations. The proposal would replicate this feature, albeit at a sunken height due to the change in ground levels.

The proposed access steps to the sunken courtyard would also be minimal in both height and footprint. They would not appear unusual, given that external stairs already exist across the communal rear garden. The proposed new side steps would be of similar size and scale to the existing set they would replace. They would be discreetly positioned against the side boundary and would maintain access to the rear garden from this side. Whilst some vegetation clearance would be required to accommodate them, this would not be a significant amount given the minimal dimensions. Moreover, no new boundary treatments are proposed to facilitate these works. Whilst the sunken courtyard will create a new level, it would be of a small area immediately to the front of the proposed studio. It is also not uncommon for rear gardens to have raised or lower sections due to changes in ground heights.

Allowing this scheme would not automatically establish an undesirable pattern for similar development in the area, as any such proposals would be required to go through their own site and development specific assessment.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would accord with Policies 4, 37 and 44 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP), Policies D3, D4 and H2 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these require development proposals to be of a high quality design, which respect, enhance and strengthen ASRCs and respond to a site’s context. The design should also be thoroughly scrutinised with well-designed new homes supported on small sites.

The flatted developments have access points on various elevations, including a main side entrance and rear patio doors seen at Numbers 1A and [address] (No. 1A and 8A). As such, whilst the proposed studio flat’s main entrance would be from the rear elevation, this would not be an unusual or uncharacteristic arrangement, given that access to the existing basement flats already involves passing through a side access. In particular, the occupiers of No. [address] through the side passage and across the rear elevation to reach their main entrance.

The proposed main entrance at the rear would face onto the communal garden. It would therefore sit within an area subject to natural surveillance from the upper floor flats within the [address] complex, which could overlook onto the shared outdoor space. It would also be positioned toward the side of the rear elevation closest to other existing dwellings, ensuring it would not appear isolated or give rise to safety concerns. The entrance door would be easily identifiable as it would be contained within the sunken courtyard and would be the sole access point serving the studio flat. It would also be readily accessible via the proposed side steps, which would link directly to the existing side passage.

Therefore, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the future occupiers, with specific regard to its main entrance layout. It would not conflict with Policies 4 and 37 of the BLP and Policy D6 of the LP. Together, and amongst other things, these require development proposals to respect the amenities of future occupants, with comfortable and functional layouts that consider safety and security.

Appeal decision 3277923 related to the conversion for a two bedroom flat, a front lightwell together with a new rear lightwell/private patio, and a set of remodelled side steps arranged at an angled and more sprawling layout. As such, the level of excavation required for that development would be substantially greater than what is proposed under this scheme. The lightwell/private patio in that case also appears to be more enclosed, landscaped, and visually segregated than the more modest sunken courtyard proposed as part of the appeal scheme before me.

In the case of 3178953, this related to a conversion for a one bedroom flat and did not include a sunken courtyard. The main issues in that case do not form part of the considerations in this appeal and therefore limits its relevance. The proposals before me do have some similarities with 3205524 as well as some differences, but for the reasons set out above, I have explained why I find this appeal scheme to be acceptable.

The effects upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to privacy, outlook and light were not matters of dispute in the appeal. The proposed new openings would either be at the rear or positioned at a high level. The proposed studio would also be a conversion of an existing lower ground floor unit, with separation distances to surrounding flats remaining unchanged. Similarly, the effects upon the living conditions of the future occupiers, with specific regard to light, ventilation and internal layout were not contentious matters. The proposed studio would be open plan and served by large openings at the rear, with additional windows to the side. It would also achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5 metres and exceed the gross internal floor area set out within Policy D6 of the LP. As such, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s findings in these regards.

Representations have raised concerns about noise and disturbance from construction works, as well as construction vehicle access arrangements and the storage of materials. Any such disruption would be temporary, and a condition could be imposed requiring a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This can set out, amongst other things, measures to reduce demolition and construction noise, the arrangements for vehicle access and the storage of materials and plant.

Any disputes surrounding the land ownership of the communal garden is a civil matter to be resolved between the relevant parties and is not determinative in this appeal, nor is the matter of the appeal scheme’s financial viability. Concerns have been raised regarding damp. However, if this were to occur, this matter could be addressed through appropriate maintenance or remedial works and would carry limited weight against the scheme. Representations have referred to previous refused applications at the appeal site. However, I have assessed the appeal scheme on its own planning merits, which I find acceptable for the reasons set out.

The Council suggested a number of conditions which I have considered in the light of the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In some cases, I have made amendments for clarity and enforceability. To provide certainty and for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to impose the standard time limit and specify the approved plans. A condition is also necessary to ensure the materials accord with the details submitted in the application form. They would be acceptable for the appearance of the host property.

In the interests of minimising construction related impacts upon the living conditions to neighbouring occupiers and upon pedestrian and highway safety, it is reasonable to set out a pre-commencement condition to secure details for a CEMP. A pre-commencement condition is also necessary to ensure that surface water drainage is appropriately managed and disposed of, to comply with Policy SI 13 of the LP and Policy 116 of the BLP. The timings of the detail required to discharge these conditions is such, given they are both relevant to how works will be carried out and may require ground investigations respectively.

A scheme for hard and soft landscaped areas is necessary to ensure a high quality development to comply with Policies 73 and 77 of the BLP and Policy G7 of the LP. It would be sufficient, given what they seek to achieve, for details to be submitted prior to any above ground works. A condition requiring details for the provision of cycle and refuse storage to encourage and facilitate active travel, in accordance with Policy D3 of the LP, and so that adequate refuse provisions are made for the future occupiers is reasonable and necessary, for the proper functioning of the appeal development. As above, it would be sufficient for such detail to be agreed prior to its first occupation.

A condition to guarantee that any gas boilers to be installed does not exceed the NOx emission rate over 40mg/kWh is reasonable and necessary, to limit the developments impact on air quality and to comply with Policy SI 1 of the LP and Policy 120 of the BLP. The Council has suggested a condition for details of the finished ground levels and cross sections to be provided. However, this condition is not necessary as sufficient information is shown on the submitted plans to demonstrate adequate ceiling heights and to indicate where the proposal would be relative to the external ground level. These are approved by their own condition.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed given it complies with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out below.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, drawing references: 101 – Revision P1 and 103 – Revision P1.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as they are set out on the application form.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include the following details: a) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction; b) the location and management of storage areas for plant, equipment and materials, and arrangements for loading and unloading; c) measures to reduce demolition and construction noise; d) details of construction related vehicle movements, including the expected number and timing of trips, with the intention and aim of reducing the impact of construction related activity; e) measures to ensure safe pedestrian movement during construction; f) 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; g) arrangements for the parking of operatives’ vehicles; h) contact details for the site and project manager responsible for day-to-day management of the works; i) delivery, demolition and construction working hours. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP for the duration of the construction period.

No development shall take place until a scheme for the management and disposal of surface water has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and retained thereafter.

Prior to any above ground works commencing on site, details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of any trees/plants to be removed; and a schedule of any plant/trees to be planted, detailing their species, size, density and location. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented in the next available planting season following the first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

The studio flat hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until space has been laid out within the site for the storage of bicycles and refuse bins and these spaces shall be retained for such use thereafter.

Any gas boilers installed within the studio flat hereby approved shall have a dry NOx emission rate of no more than 40mg/kWh.