Appeal 6001539

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: - • Whether the proposal would comply with Policy 10 of the Sutton Local Plan and provide “better designed and high quality” housing. • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the design, scale and appearance of the roof level. • Whether the proposed development would provide appropriate living conditions for the future occupiers in terms of external amenity space. • The effect of the development on carbon emissions, flood risk and biodiversity.

Policy 10 of the Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031 (Local Plan) relates to the loss of housing and conversions. As a result of the proposed development, there would be an increase in residential properties from a single bungalow to two, 3-bedroom properties. As such, there would be no loss of residential accommodation. The requirement for better-designed, higher-quality new housing is a criterion for when a loss of accommodation may be considered acceptable, not a general provision of the policy.

I therefore find that policy 10 is not applicable to this proposal. Other development plan policies requiring good design form part of the considerations set out below.

[site address] is a detached bungalow with a low-profile roof. It forms part of a short row of properties to one side of [site address] , which becomes a footpath through a treed area to the southwest. The existing properties vary in design, but there is general consistency in their scale, forming a small enclave of bungalows that contribute to a sense of visual openness compared to the two-storey terraced/semi-detached houses in the vicinity. The surrounding area has a wide range of house types and developments, and immediately to the rear of the appeal site is [address] [name].

The proposed replacement building would create a semi-detached pair of properties. There would be a substantial increase in the bulk and massing with a half-hipped roof extending over the increased depth and dormer windows to the front and rear. The overall height would be similar to that of the adjoining property, The Chalet, and the rear depth would correspond to Woodside, on the other side; nonetheless, together, the height, form, and massing would appear discordant in the context of the neighbouring properties.

The existing properties along [site address] are single-storey and of a modest, cottage-style appearance with simple roofscapes. Where there is first-floor accommodation (to The Chalet), it is within the roof with a front dormer of limited depth. Conversely, the proposal would appear top-heavy, accentuated by the half-hipped dormer windows. These features duplicated to each property would effectively facilitate a complete first floor and would be visually prominent in the street scene. In addition, with parking proposed immediately in front and the garden space reduced, the proposed development would consume the plot, resulting in a cramped and incongruent appearance, out of keeping with the prevailing form of development in [site address] .

While acknowledging the need to make the best use of land, it is to be design-led and respond to the site’s context. In that regard, I find that the proposal would be a visually intrusive and dominant addition to the street scene and would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site’s surroundings. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policy 28 and policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (London Plan), which require new development to be of an acceptable scale and appearance that reflects the existing setting and local context. There would also be conflict with the related guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document - [name] (SPD 14).

The reason for refusal (reason 2) also refers to London Plan policies D1 and D4 which relate to character assessments and identifying locations for growth, and masterplans and design codes, respectively. These policies do not directly relate to the impact of development on the character and appearance of the area, and as such, I find no conflict with them in this regard. Policy D6 is also cited, but as no concerns are raised regarding the internal space standards, it is assumed that this relates to the private outdoor space, which is considered below.

The supporting text to Local Plan policy 9 sets a minimum standard of 70m2 of private amenity space for three-bedroom units, which the proposal would not meet. It does, however, advise that it should be seen as a guide, particularly in areas of potential intensification, where the site is located. It is also significantly higher than the London Plan standard of 5m2 of private outdoor space for a 1-2 person dwelling, with an extra 1m2 for each additional person.

The proposed gardens would have a limited depth from the rear of the properties, but they would not be dissimilar to the neighbours, and there are no residential properties to the rear. While subdivided and irregular in form, partially extending behind the adjacent property, each garden would have a patio and grassed/landscaped areas, and would accommodate cycle storage.

Thereby, on balance, I find that the proposal would provide an adequate amount of amenity space and would not result in unsatisfactory living conditions for the occupiers. As such, there would be no material conflict with the amenity objectives of Local Plan policy 9 and SPD14.

Reasons for refusals 4 and 5 list a number of areas where evidence has not been provided to demonstrate compliance with Local Plan policies (31, 32 and 33) and ensuring the statutory requirement for [name] (BNG) is met.

The plans and documents before me advise that the proposed development would incorporate air source heat pumps and solar PV panels as well as measures to reduce water consumption. It is not clear whether the accompanying Sustainability & [name] prepared by [name] was directly considered by the Council; however, it includes SAP calculations and indicates a potential 80% reduction in CO2 emissions compared with [name] of the Building Regulations 2021. The proposed measures are therefore capable of achieving the requirements of Local Plan policy 31 of at least a 35% reduction and the details could be secured by condition.

Local Plan policy 32 relates to flood risk and sustainable drainage. There is a lack of clarity regarding the flood risk level of the appeal site. The officer’s report refers to both zones 2 and 3, and the appellant’s plan indicates that it is outside these areas. The latter is, however, an unlabelled extract. Whilst it is for me to consider the evidence before me, given the conflicting information, I have viewed the flood risk map1 for the area which indicates the site is within flood zone 2. As such, and in line with the National Planning Policy Framework, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required. While the appellant’s appeal statement refers to an FRA submitted with the planning application, it has been confirmed that there is no FRA. Consequently, I am unable to conclude that the development would not be affected by flooding and/or that the risks would be mitigated. Therefore, the proposal fails to accord with the requirements of policy 32 and conflicts with related policy 33 in terms of climate change adaptation, flood risk avoidance and minimisation, and the promotion of sustainable drainage.

It is a requirement for developments to deliver a BNG of 10%. Extracts of the BNG metric and a report have been provided, but not the full completed metric, and there are no details of off-site measures to achieve the necessary 10% gain. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has raised several queries and suggested that the green roof shown on the plans may provide the gains. It is, however, also noted that the planning application form indicates that the de minimis exemption is 1 sought. Notwithstanding this, given my findings on other matters, BNG compliance and the imposition of the condition to secure are not determinative, and therefore, I have not considered this matter further.

The site falls within the Hackbridge and Beddington Corner Neighbourhood Plan area. While not directly referenced in the reasons for refusal, the development would also be contrary to policy H&BEP1, which, reflecting Local Plan policy 28, requires developments to respect the scale, density, and appearance of the suburban setting.

The appellant raises concerns that the Council’s pre-application advice excluded issues that formed part of the reasons for refusal and that the matters could be addressed through conditions. Whilst acknowledging the merit of pre-application engagement, the Council's procedures are outside the scope of this appeal, and a pre-app is not a formal determination. As set out above, there are some aspects where, based on the information provided, a condition could be imposed. However, it is necessary to assess the flood risk and compliance with the BNG objectives at the application stage.

I have found that the proposal would not conflict with Local Plan policy 10, the level of amenity space would provide for satisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers, and energy-efficient and water-saving measures would be incorporated. The development would, however, have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. There is no FRA to support the proposal in a flood-risk area, and it has not been demonstrated that the necessary 10% BNG would be secured.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, for the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.