Appeal 6002067

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans have been submitted with the appeal. These show alterations to the layout, namely the removal a parking space and increased garden sizes. While the appellant attributes the submission of amended plans to limited engagement during the application process, this is not a sufficient basis to introduce a significantly altered scheme at appeal.

The appropriate mechanism would have been a revised application rather than introducing new plans at appeal. For the avoidance of doubt, my determination of the appeal is based on the plans upon which the application was determined.

The appeal scheme also includes a surface water drainage strategy that was not before the Council. Unlike the amended plans, this document does not change the proposal itself. As the Council, its consultees and interested parties have been able to comment on it during the appeal, its consideration would not result in procedural unfairness.

The Council’s drainage consultant advises that the drainage strategy is acceptable in principle, subject to a condition. I agree that the strategy suitably aligns with the sustainable drainage hierarchy, thereby addressing the Council’s fifth reason for refusal. If the appeal were to succeed, I would consider the suggested condition later in my decision. This is reflected in my main issues.

There are discrepancies within the Council’s evidence as to the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of the site. However, the Council have subsequently clarified, the correct rating to be 2. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, • whether or not the level of car parking proposed would result in unacceptable effects on the local highway network, • the effect of the layout, particularly the access to the cycle and bin stores, on sustainable travel and waste and recycling, and • whether the proposal would provide sufficient external amenity space for future occupiers.

[address] has an attractive suburban character, defined by its spacious feel, wide grassed verges, and mature tree planting within both the public realm and private gardens. The street is characterised by a consistent building line, regularly shaped plots, and a run of post-war two-storey houses and maisonettes with steeply pitched tiled roofs and chimneys, creating a coherent roofscape and a rhythm of development that sits comfortably within generous landscaped settings. The appeal site is visible from the near approach along [address] but is not appreciable from [address], where intervening buildings and the alignment of the street restrict views.

Against this backdrop, the bulk of the proposed roof would appear disproportionate. The main roof significantly exceeds the visual weight of the lower floors, and the small, cropped hip elements do not provide meaningful articulation. Their limited scale leaves the roof form visually unbroken, resulting in an overly dominant and top-heavy appearance that is not typical of the surrounding houses. This, in turn, lends the building a more substantial and vertical presence than is seen elsewhere along the street, disrupting the cohesive hipped roofscape that contributes to the area’s character.

This effect would be heightened by the limited setback. Dwellings elsewhere along [address] are positioned parallel to the road and set well back within rectangular plots, which creates a spacious, open character. In contrast, the appeal scheme would sit noticeably forward of the prevailing building line. This would be particularly apparent at the front corner of Plot 2, which would sit close to the curve in the road and appear markedly more prominent in views along the near approach.

The appellant contends that due to the curved geometry of the road in front of the appeal site, it is less clear where any set back should be measured from. However, for each house, even at the point of greatest set back, it remains well below that seen elsewhere along this part of [address]. Combined with the bulky roof form, the reduced setback would lead to a development that appears awkward, visually heavy, and inconsistent with the surrounding suburban pattern.

The appellant refers to the gable-ended roofs at [address], but that scheme formed a comprehensive redevelopment of eight dwellings with a consistent setback and unified layout. Those factors, taken together, ensured that the development matched the prevailing pattern despite the variation in roof form. That is not the case here. This proposal represents a piecemeal insertion with several characteristics, roof bulk, limited setback, angled positioning, and lack of articulation, that fail to reflect the established character and therefore have a very different and more harmful effect on the street scene.

Although the proposed materials are acceptable in principle, the lack of architectural detailing results in elevations that appear flat and visually unrelieved. The blank side elevations exacerbate this, particularly the highly visible side elevation of Plot 2. Even when compared with the relatively simple architectural expression of other houses on [address], these elevations would appear stark and unrefined, providing little to soften the massing or break down the perceived scale of the building.

I accept that not all properties follow the building line precisely. No. [address] has been referenced, but it fronts a different street scene and responds to that separate context; the same applies to development on [address]. Nos. 83 and [address] sit further back due to the geometry of the cul-de-sac spur, a localised feature that does not exist near the appeal site.

Their position reflects that distinct layout rather than any wider variation along the main run of [address]. While the appellant also refers to a perceived step between Nos. 44 and [address], the difference in setback there is modest and not significant. Taken together, these examples do not alter the clear and consistent building line that characterises the part of [address] within which the appeal site sits, nor do they justify the minimal setback proposed.

I acknowledge that the existing garages are not architecturally appealing. However, their low profile, modest scale, and recessive presence ensure they do not detract significantly from the spacious character of the street. Importantly, they preserve a meaningful visual break between buildings, reinforcing the openness that is characteristic of this part of [address]. In light of the harm I have identified in respect of the proposal’s siting, scale and roof form, I am not persuaded that their replacement would amount to a visual improvement.

I also recognise that soft landscaping can assist in assimilating new development. However, the very limited depth of the frontage, together with the minimal setback, leaves insufficient space for planting of the scale typically seen along [address]. This constrained area would not support meaningful landscaping capable of mitigating the harm arising from the forward siting and bulk of the proposed building.

The appellant refers to No. [address] as an example of variation within the street. That property does accommodate a large dormer, but it is positioned on the rear slope, limiting its visibility. Its gable-ended roof, although different from the prevailing hipped forms, is proportionate and benefits from window openings and detailing that break up the massing. Crucially, the dwelling maintains the established setback and sits comfortably within the regular pattern of spacing. It therefore integrates well with the character of the area and does not justify a new building that would be more prominent, more visually bulky, and positioned materially closer to the road.

More broadly, while the appellant asserts that two 3-bed, 6-person houses represent a typical form of development locally, this does not, in itself, demonstrate that such a form can be accommodated acceptably on this particular site. On the basis of the plans before me, and having regard to the harm identified above, I am not satisfied that the scale and form proposed could be integrated into this setting in a manner that respects the established character and appearance of [address].

The appellant has referred to the improvements to the street scene, and positive feedback received, in relation to the development at [address]. [name] have no reason to dispute the quality of that scheme, I must assess the current proposal on its own merits.

In light of the cumulative impact of the limited setback from the road, the excessive bulk and dominance of the roof form, and the very limited articulation across the dwellings, the proposal would fail to reflect the prevailing pattern of development and would erode the attractive, spacious qualities that characterise the road. Consequently, it would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP), Policy DM10 of the [name] 2012 (CS), Policy Guidance 24 of the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document 2013, and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), all of which require development to respond positively to local distinctiveness, particularly in relation to layout, scale, and key character-defining elements such as building setback, and to achieve high standards of visual design and appearance.

The site has a PTAL rating of 2 and Policy T6.1 of the London Plan sets a maximum of one parking space per dwelling. I have not been directed to any policy basis for exceeding this standard, and the proposal for two spaces per unit would therefore conflict with the adopted position.

The appellant refers to parking pressures on [address], and I noted some on-street parking during my visit, although I recognise this represents one snapshot in time and may not be representative of other times/days. Interested parties, including those behind a recent parking petition, also report parking stress. However, no parking survey has been submitted such to amount to substantive evidence and such to justify a departure from the maximum standard. The area is not within a controlled parking zone and the removal of the existing garages does not alter the fact that parking standards apply per dwelling.

The appellant relies on census data indicating that around 30 per cent of local households own two cars. This confirms that most households do not own two cars and the data reflects a mix of dwelling types and circumstances across the wider neighbourhood. It cannot therefore be assumed that car ownership for this specific scheme would mirror those broader averages. In the absence of more precise evidence, the census data does not justify a higher level of on-site provision.

Both the appellant and the petition refer to emergency and waste vehicles encountering obstruction on the road. Obstruction of the highway is a parking enforcement matter rather than an issue that should be remedied through additional off-street parking within this development. There is no substantive evidence before me that the proposal would lead to a highway safety issue or demonstrably worsen the existing situation.

In light of the above, there is no justification for the number of spaces proposed, and the exceedance of the maximum parking standards would be contrary to the aims of the Framework and the London Plan to reduce reliance on the private car. I attach considerable weight to this conflict and conclude that the level of parking proposed would undermine the objectives of Policy T6.1 of the LP, and Policies CS7 and DM9 of the CS.

Although Policy DM10 is also listed in the Council’s reason for refusal, this relates to the design of parking spaces rather than the quantity being provided, as such, the policy has not been determinative.

The proposal includes a refuse and cycle store; however, the store for Plot 1 is located within the rear garden and access to it would be constrained by the on-site parking, with no dedicated path. This arrangement would make the store difficult to reach and is likely to discourage appropriate waste disposal and cycle use.

I note the appellant has suggested a further amendment to the revised plans to potentially resolve the matter. However, for the reasons set out above, my assessment is based on the plans on which the application was determined. On that basis, there is no evidence that a minor alteration would resolve the issue.

This conflicts with Policy T5 of the LP, and Policies CS9, CS6 and DM8 of the CS, which, insofar as relevant, require storage facilities to be conveniently located and easily accessible so as to support sustainable travel and effective waste management. This would also conflict with the Framework’s environmental objectives and its requirement to ensure a high standard of amenity for both existing and future users.

Policy D6 of the London Plan requires a minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space for dwellings of this size. Policy Guidance 13 of the Council’s Residential Design SPD, while not part of the development plan, seeks 50 sqm.

Plot 1 would provide 47sqm of private amenity space and Plot 2 42sqm, both falling slightly below the 50 sqm guideline, but comfortably exceeding the London Plan requirement. [name] form is usable and would provide adequate opportunities for sitting out, drying laundry and a modest amount of children’s play.

The appellant refers to nearby recreation grounds ([name] and [name]), but both are at a distance that would be unlikely to function as daily or unaccompanied play space, particularly for families with young children. I therefore attach only limited weight to them as mitigation for the shortfall.

I have considered the gardens at [address], which are smaller than those proposed here. However, I have no clear evidence as to why those sizes were accepted, and as that was a larger, comprehensive scheme, the circumstances are not directly comparable.

In this case, the shortfall is modest, and in the absence of a development plan policy requiring a higher figure, I am satisfied that the proposed garden sizes would be acceptable and would accord with Policy DM10 of the CS and Policy D6 of the LP.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal and costs decision1, along with comments from a barrister, relating to development in Kingston upon Thames. The appeal scheme and its location share no meaningful similarities with the proposal before me, beyond also being within the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. The appellant does not appear to claim otherwise. Their reference instead concerns what they allege to be similarly poor handling of that case. Whether or not any such similarities exist, they have no bearing on the planning merits of the scheme before me, and there is no application for costs in this instance.

I recognise that the appellant has previously offered to fund road improvements, contribute to parking initiatives and establish a joint working group. Although these offers appear well intentioned, there is no evidence to show that their delivery is contingent upon the outcome of this appeal. Any such measures would also require support from several organisations and fall outside the direct control of the appellant. For these reasons, and while I do not question the positive intentions behind the offers, they carry little weight in the planning balance and have not been determinative in my consideration of this appeal.

The harm identified in relation to the character and appearance of the area would be significant. I also attach considerable weight to the exceedance of maximum parking standards, given the resulting conflict with policy aims to reduce reliance on the private car. Additional weight is attributed to the shortcomings in waste and cycle provision, which conflict with environmental policy objectives and the requirement to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Collectively, these harms amount to a conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and I understand that its housing delivery test result is below 75 per cent. In these circumstances, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged. Within this context, the scheme would make a small but nonetheless important contribution towards meeting local housing needs. I recognise that small and medium sized sites are acknowledged in the Framework as making an important contribution to overall housing supply and this weighs in favour of the proposal.

The development would give rise to temporary economic benefits during the construction phase through job creation. Additional spending within the local area would also result from the new households and the scheme would be well located in relation to nearby services. Financial contributions towards local infrastructure would be secured in line with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, ensuring there is no undue burden on local services. However, given the scale of the scheme, the wider public benefits, including those linked to housing, social and economic outcomes, would be modest.

I have had particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes. In this regard the proposal would be located within an existing, built-up residential area where the principle of development is acceptable. 1 Appeal Ref 3364278 dated 03 October 2025 The site is located within a built up residential area where the principle of development is acceptable, and the proposal would utilise brownfield land. However, for the reasons already identified, the proposal would fail to deliver a suitable standard of accommodation in relation to waste and refuse provision, and it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As a result, it would not represent an effective use of land or amount to well-designed development. No affordable housing would be provided.

In light of the above, it follows that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The scheme would not therefore be sustainable development within the meaning of the Framework and this weighs heavily against the scheme.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.