Appeal 6003521

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character of the surrounding area. • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the future occupants of the proposed loft [name].

The appeal site comprises a 2.5-storey detached dwelling on a generous plot. Although a multi-storey hotel complex is located at the end of [address], the surrounding established residential area is characterised by two-storey detached and semi-detached single-family homes.

The proposal would convert an existing single detached family dwelling into three self-contained flats – one at ground floor level ([name]), first floor level ([name]) and a loft conversion ([name]). Detached and semi-detached family houses form a consistent and defining component of the character of [address]. No evidence has been submitted that there are other similarly converted properties within the surrounding area. However, the scale of the proposed scheme and the likely number of occupants would result in a level of comings and goings — including visitors and deliveries — that go beyond what could reasonably be expected from a single-family occupation. Consequently, this would change the functional character of the building and would constitute a clear departure from the established pattern of development, resulting in significant harm to the character of the surrounding area.

I conclude that the proposed development would consequently conflict with Policies 4, 9 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (LP), which require schemes to respect the local character, permitting such conversions only where, among other things, the character of the surrounding area would not be adversely affected; and seeking development to complement, among other things, the layout of adjacent buildings and areas.

[name] would be located within the loft space. While it would exceed the minimum space and storage standards for a one bedroom, one person flat in accordance with Policy D6 of the London Plan; the proposal fails to demonstrate that at least 75% of the unit would meet the required minimum floor to ceiling height. The suggested planning condition to restrict [name] to studio, single person occupancy, would not be able to overcome the failure to provide the required floor to ceiling height. Consequently, it would not deliver a high quality, comfortable, or functional living environment for future occupants.

Notwithstanding the acceptable elements of the scheme with regard to unit size and layout for [name] and B, and the sufficient private outdoor space for all three units, the internal inadequacy in respect of [name] leads me to conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions for future occupants. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Policies 9 and 37 of the LP, Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan together with the [name] - London Plan Guidance (adopted June 2023) as a material consideration, amongst other things, seek to provide a high-quality design and living environment for future occupants.

My attention has been drawn to two appeal cases1 which the appellant sets out that the inspectors did not examine either the number of residential units or number of occupants in isolation to other effects including character and appearance living conditions. Neither appeal is directly comparable to the proposed development before me since appeal 3346424 relating to the potential loss of a local community facility to form three residential units and would include an increase in ridge height, and appeal 3350550 for the proposed construction of a 1 bed flat above existing commercial units. In any event, all applications and appeals are assessed on their own individual merits in relation to the relevant adopted development plan policies and any other material considerations. In this case, I have found that the proposed development would not respect the character of the surrounding area and that [name] would cause harm to the living conditions of future occupants. I therefore afford these two appeal decisions only modest weight in my determination of this appeal.

The main parties agree that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (5YHLS) with this currently standing at 2.4 years, which is a very significant shortfall. Where a 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated, paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (‘the Framework’) means that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, and that permission should be granted unless the circumstances in paragraph 11 d)(i) or (ii) apply. In this case, paragraph 11 d)(i) is not engaged. 1 APP/G5180/W/24/3346424; APP/G5180/W/24/3350550

With regard to paragraph 11 d)(ii), permission should be granted unless 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 harm the character of the surrounding area and the living conditions of future occupants. This would conflict with the relevant policies outlined above. I afford these harms and conflicts significant weight individually. The Framework is clear that small sites can make an important contribution to housing delivery, therefore I attach moderate weight to the provision of the net addition of two homes. I also acknowledge that the site is within a sustainable urban residential location and attribute moderate weight to this. However, the adverse impacts on character and the living conditions of future occupants, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these modest benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Several other concerns, not included within the main issues of this appeal, have also been raised by an interested party including cycle parking and the effect on neighbouring occupiers. As the appeal is being dismissed for the reasons given, these other matters do not need to be explored in detail.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.