Appeal 6003576

The appeal is dismissed.

It is clear from the evidence provided and my site visit that the storage container has already been installed on the site. The appeal is therefore partially retrospective in this respect, and I shall determine the appeal on that basis accordingly.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: a) Whether the proposed use would be acceptable in this location. b) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. c) The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining and nearby residential properties with regard to sunlight, outlook and disturbance.

The appeal site, enclosed with timber fencing and immediately adjacent to [address] residential home, presently comprises a rough stone hardstanding for the storage of building materials, equipment and other associated items, and storage container. The appeal site, which is located next to the junction of [address] and [address], is located within the surrounding predominantly residential area.

The proposed development, which would be used as a focus point for employees of the appellant to collect/drop off handheld tools and other small materials for small scale, local construction sites, would not be located within the [name] (SIL) or [name] (LSIS), nor would it meet the requirements of a Non-designated Industrial Site as, among other things, the storage and distribution use would not be completed in advance of the occupation of a neighbouring residential component. As this would not be the case, the adjoining [address] would not have any appropriate design mitigation in place to deal with, amongst other things, the impact of the proposed development on noise, layout, access and residential amenity.

The proposed development would appear as a separate, individual planning unit and would not read as a visually coherent development with existing houses and a residential care home located between the site and a parade of ground floor commercial units further along [address].

Boundary trees along [address] would provide partial screening; however, the scale, form and layout of the proposal as a whole, would remain prominent and not achieve a high-quality design or respect its surroundings. Instead, it would appear visually intrusive and an incongruous feature within the street scene particularly when viewed from [address], from the opposite side of the site, and from the staggered junction with [address] and [address].

Although the proposed timber cladding and canopy would soften the visual impact of the steel container, it would not respect or reflect the external finishes of the adjoining residential home or surrounding houses. The proposed scheme would thereby harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I conclude the proposed development conflicts with Policy 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (adopted January 2019) (LP), which states that all development proposals should, amongst other things, be of a high standard of design, complement the scale, proportion, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas, and positively contribute to the existing street scene.

The proposal conflicts with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan which states, amongst other things, development proposals should enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that respond positively to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions.

Moreover, the proposed development is contrary to Policies E2, E4 and E7 of the London Plan which state, among other things, mixed used development proposals comprising storage or distribution with residential on [name] are not compromised in terms of their efficient function, access and days/hours of operation; the storage use is completed in advance of an residential component is occupied; any design mitigation is provided in a residential element; and the development of B Use Class businesses use should ensure the space is fit for purpose having regard to the type and use of the space.

The Council has referred me to Policy 83 of the LP, which seeks improvements to the quality and quantity of employment floorspace on sites containing existing industrial and related employment uses outside designated SILs and LSISs. However, the previous use for a gas governor would not fall within the stated existing use, and for the reasons above the appeal site would not meet the requirements of a Non-designated Industrial Site: therefore Policy 83 of the LP would not be relevant.

The existing timber boundary fencing, which would be retained as part of the proposed development, is situated directly adjacent to ground floor windows and a paved seating area of the adjoining multi-storey residential home. This arrangement results in unacceptable outlook to existing residents with a reduction in sunlight observed to the seating area due to overshadowing.

There is no evidence before me that the proposed change of use of the land to a storage facility would result in noise nuisance with the Council’s Environmental Health team stating no comment regarding the proposal. However, the scheme would not effectively integrate into the surrounding residential environment. Whilst the appellant sets out that there would be no vehicular access into the appeal site, the proposed development would likely result in greater noise levels with increased comings and goings: the submitted evidence outlines that the proposed development would act as a focal point for employees to collect/drop off handheld tools or materials that can be carried by individuals by foot, in cars or vans to local construction sites.

The information before me does not sufficiently substantiate the proposed number of employees involved, the types number of times per day employees would visit the site, and footfall details of visits to collect/drop off tools, materials and other items that would be stored on the site. Taking this into account and the open aired nature of the appeal site, there is insufficient evidence before me which would demonstrate that the proposal would not impinge on the quality of life of existing neighbouring residents due to noise or would not adversely affect their residential amenity either to the external seating area or inside with windows open on warmer days.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the adjoining [address] residential harm due to noise and disturbance.

The proposed development conflicts with Policy 37 of the LP, which states that development proposals should, amongst other things, respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings providing healthy environments and ensuring they are not harmed by noise and disturbance, inadequate sunlight or by overshadowing. The proposed development is also contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan, which, among other things, seek development proposals to deliver appropriate outlook and amenity, and help prevent or mitigate the impacts of noise.

Another concern, not included within the main issues of this appeal, has also been raised by an interested party regarding the proposed double gate access into the appeal site and its effect on neighbouring occupiers. As the appeal is being dismissed for the reasons given, this other matter does 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 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.