Appeal 6001497

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

The appeal scheme is an outline proposal, with access, appearance, layout and scale to be considered at this stage, and landscaping reserved for future consideration. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that the Council would have refused planning permission had it made a decision on the proposal for reasons relating to character and appearance, the living conditions of future occupiers and highway safety. I have had regard to the parties’ submissions in establishing the main issues which I set out below.

The appellant has submitted a revised plan as part of the appeal process, increasing the size of the proposed balconies. Section 16 of the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England (2026) advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage.

The revised proposal is substantially different to that originally submitted to the Council, consulted upon and upon which the Council based its decision. As such, accepting the revised plan at this stage would prejudice the interests of the Council and also deprive those entitled to be consulted on an application the opportunity to make a representation. Therefore, my decision is based on the development proposals before the Council when the application was determined.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to external space; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal property comprises a detached bungalow set within a large plot. It is located within an area which is residential in character. Surrounding properties vary in architectural style and size, with semi-detached and detached bungalows and 2-storey houses forming the predominant form of development to the south of the appeal site whereas to the north properties are generally terraces of 3-storey dwellings. Despite this variety in form, there are some commonalities including pitched and hipped roofs, elevational treatments which principally comprise brick and render and windows on upper floors being set within gable forms.

The appeal proposal is the demolition of the existing bungalow and construction of a 3-storey building providing 6 flats. The proposal would significantly increase the scale and massing of built form on the site. Although the appeal site is a relatively large plot, from the plans before me and my observations on site, the scale and massing of the proposed building would, in the context of surrounding built form, overwhelm the plot.

In this regard, even though the surrounding area is mixed in character and the appeal site is at a transitional point in terms of the density and massing of built form, the appeal proposal would appear incongruous and discordant with the surrounding built form, in particular the smaller-scale development to the south.

Furthermore, the form of the proposed building would appear out-of-character for the area as a result of a roof form which departs from the established form of development in the surrounding area in respect of its mansard shape and dormer windows. The proposed roof form would contrast starkly with the pitched and hipped roof shapes and windows set within gable forms on adjacent buildings, thereby appearing unduly prominent.

The appellant suggests that the proposed mansard roof could be used to provide solar panels and would limit the perceived bulk of the building when read in the street scene. Whilst this may be the case in some front-on views, the form and massing would be highly visible, and unduly prominent, when viewed from the south given that the adjacent property is 2-storeys in height.

The proposed building would include bay windows and set-backs and use a variety of materials, including brick and render evocative of the surrounding built form. The combined effect of these features would be to break up the massing of the building and provide visual interest, particularly on the front elevation. Nevertheless, the overall scale and massing of the building would appear incongruous given its siting adjacent to a 2-storey dwelling, particularly as there would be insufficient articulation on the flank elevation to break up the massing.

The appellant has drawn to my attention recent developments at [address] and [address]. I observed on site that these developments are broadly comparable in scale and form to the appeal proposal and also use a similar materials palette. However, the setting of these developments differs to that of the appeal site. [address] is surrounded by built form which is, generally, of a comparable scale to that development. In contrast, the appeal proposal is substantially larger than many of the properties in the immediate vicinity with the appeal scheme, consequently, appearing incongruous.

In respect of [address], while I observed the limited homogeneity in design identified by the Inspector determining that appeal1, the surrounding built form is broadly of a comparable scale to the development. In addition, the development is sited a broadly consistent distance from the road frontage compared to neighbouring properties and is of comparable depth. Together with the mature vegetation to the sides of the development, which provide screening, this results in the scale and massing of the development appearing in-keeping with the surrounding area, notwithstanding its different form and elevational treatment. The appeal proposal, in contrast, is greater in height and depth than properties to the south and, with limited vegetation to provide screening, would appear unduly large and prominent in the street scene.

Moreover, these schemes were assessed against a different planning policy context. The schemes are not, therefore, directly comparable to the appeal proposal and do not lessen the harm I have identified in respect of this main issue.

The appellant also highlights the recent developments at 6/7 Barton Green, [name] and [address], Surbiton. While these schemes were assessed against current policies, I do not have full details of the schemes or the planning balance in these cases before me. I also note that the site context differs for these developments compared to the appeal proposal, in respect of the scale of surrounding built form, which is broadly comparable to the developments, and, in the latter case, topography. As such, I am not able to draw any meaningful comparisons with the appeal proposal. In any event, each case must be determined on its own individual circumstances and, in this case, as I have identified above, the appeal scheme would appear incongruous and unduly prominent in the street scene. Ultimately, therefore, these permissions do not lead me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

The appellant suggests that the site is located within a Key Area of Change, with the planned change enabling alternative architectural forms to be appropriate. However, there is no evidence before me which supports this assertion. This matter does not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

The appellant advises that they would accept planning conditions in respect of materials if they would render the proposal acceptable. Nonetheless, this would not overcome the harm I have identified above in respect of character and appearance. 1 APP/Z5630/W/19/3241782

I acknowledge that the appeal proposal would not affect any identified heritage assets. Nevertheless, this matter does not lessen the harm I have identified above.

Taking account of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, it does not accord with the relevant provisions of Policies DM10 and DM11 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 (the [name]) and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (the London Plan). Among other things, these policies seek development which respects, maintains or enhances the character and local distinctiveness of an area, enhances local context and does not detrimentally affect the quality of the environment.

Policy D6 of the London Plan requires that a minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space is provided for 1-2 person dwellings plus an extra 1sqm for each additional occupant.

The proposed development would provide private outdoor space for each flat in the form of a terrace or balcony in addition to communal outdoor space. However, the balconies for flats 3-6 would only be 5sqm. The balconies would, therefore, underprovide private outdoor space by 2sqm compared to the requirement for a 4-person dwelling, which itself is a minimum.

The appellant has drawn to my attention the standards set out within the Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (2013) (SPD), suggesting that these supersede those within Policy D6 of the London Plan. However, the SPD is not a development plan document and, as such, the standards therein do not, in accordance with Policy D6, take precedence.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would provide substantially sized communal outdoor space. Nevertheless, in my experience, the provision of additional communal outdoor space does not entirely compensate for a lack of private outdoor space as communal and private spaces are suitable for different uses.

The appellant suggests that the proposed balconies are sized such that they would be in-keeping with the suburban setting of the proposed development. However, the balconies would be located to the rear of the proposed building, with limited visibility from the street scene. There is nothing before me to suggest that, in this context, balconies which accord with the requirements of Policy D6 would be inappropriate in this location.

The Council also raise concerns regarding the accessibility of the proposed private outdoor space. These comments are made with reference to the London Plan Guidance Housing Design Standards (June 2023). This document is not before me. Notwithstanding this, it seems to me that outdoor space which is only accessible via one bedroom is not likely to provide usable space for occupiers, especially for a family-sized dwelling.

I acknowledge that the layout has been designed to enable the provision of family-sized dwellings, responding to an identified need for family homes in the Borough, and minimise the visual impact of the balconies on the street scene, given the lack of existing balconies in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. Nevertheless, it has not been demonstrated that the scheme before me is the only way in which these considerations could be addressed. Therefore, I am not satisfied that these factors justify the provision of outdoor space which is accessible via one bedroom only.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants with regard to external space. As such, it is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy DM13 of the [name]. These policies seek, among other things, the comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose and the provision of appropriate amenity space.

The proposed development would provide 2 off-street parking spaces. To achieve this, the existing vehicle crossover is proposed to be altered. The revised crossover would be located adjacent to the existing on-street parking bays.

I acknowledge the highway safety concerns raised by the Council regarding the proximity of the vehicle crossover to the existing parking bays. However, the Council’s Highways team did not raise any objection to the application. There is no evidence before me to suggest the proposed arrangement would be unsafe. Indeed, I observed on site that there are similar arrangements elsewhere on [address].

From my observations on site, the existing signpost is unlikely to inhibit vehicle access or egress from the appeal site or visibility for drivers given its limited size and siting away from the proposed crossover.

Taking account of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. In this regard, it accords with the relevant provisions of Policy CS7 of the [name] and Policy T4 of the London Plan. Among other matters, these policies seek to manage parking provision to promote sustainability and residential amenity and ensure development proposals do not increase road danger.

The appellant has provided a signed [name] as part of the appeal securing the prohibition of future occupiers obtaining parking permits. This would ensure that the effect of the proposed development in a [name] is mitigated. However, ultimately, this matter does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

The appeal proposal would have a harmful effect on character and appearance and would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. As such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

However, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The appellant indicates that the supply currently stands at 1.48 years, as identified by the Council’s Housing Delivery Test & [name] Statement (2025). This represents a serious shortfall. In these circumstances, paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

Paragraph 11d) establishes that where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken 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.

The proposal would contribute positively towards the supply of housing in an area where there is a serious shortfall and would reflect the aims of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of housing. The housing would be provided close to the services and amenities in Surbiton Town Centre on previously developed land, support for which is found in the Framework. The development would deliver dwellings suitable for families which benefit from appropriate internal floorspace and car and cycle parking. Alongside the benefits once completed, the proposal would result in economic benefits during construction. I give significant favourable weight to these cumulative benefits. However, given the scale of the proposed development, the contribution to housing supply and other benefits would be relatively limited in extent.

Balanced against the Framework is clear that proposals for the use of suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes should be approved, unless substantial harm would be caused. Moreover, while paragraph 129 of the Framework supports the efficient use of land, it sets out the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places. In addition, planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. For the reasons set out in relation to the first and second main issues, I find that the proposal would fall short of these expectations of the Framework.

Consequently, in this case, even if I were to conclude that there is a shortfall in the 5-year housing land supply on the scale suggested by the appellant, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole. As there are no material considerations which would justify determining the proposal other than in accordance with the development plan, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.