Appeal 6003686

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for residential development, having regard to relevant policies relating to protected open spaces including its effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and; • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to internal living space.

The appeal site relates to a parcel of land adjacent to [address]. The site is comprised of a mixture of vegetated open land (some of which at the time of my site visit was enclosed by hoardings), with a small area of hardstanding towards the frontage shared with [address].

The appeal site strongly contributes to a visual break between residential development in the surrounding area. [name] understand that the site was previously partially occupied by temporary buildings, these are no longer in place. Notwithstanding the roadside hoardings, the site therefore maintains an overall open and undeveloped character.

The majority of the appeal site is designated as [name]. Policy SP8 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) (BLP) seeks to protect green infrastructure, including open spaces. In specific reference to [name], the policy outlines that development will only be allowed where the public benefit of the development clearly outweighs the harm.

Policy G4 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) states in part that, development proposals should not result in the loss of protected open space. It goes on to state that where possible, proposals should create areas of publicly accessible open space, particularly in areas of deficiency.

Despite part of the appeal site remaining undeveloped, all four of the proposed dwellings would, at least in part, be within the area of protected open space. Even in the acknowledgement that the proposed dwellings would integrate in their appearance and achieve appropriate separation from the existing development in the area, the overall net loss in protected open space would be significant.

I find that the value of the space is derived from it being largely undeveloped, creating a visual break between built form. The proposed dwellings would represent a notable intrusion to the openness of the appeal site. I therefore cannot be satisfied that a condition requiring the remaining area of protected open space to be publicly accessible would mitigate the overall net loss in area of protected open space.

Consequently, in relation to this main issue, I conclude that the appeal site is not an appropriate location for residential development, having regard to relevant policies relating to protected open spaces including its effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy SP8 of the BLP and Policy G4 of the LP.

Policy D6 of the LP relates to housing quality and standards, including through setting minimum internal space standards for new dwellings. The policy sets out that a two-bedspace double (or twin) bedroom must have a floor area of at least 11.5m2.

Each of the four dwellings would have three bedrooms. Based on the size and width of each of the bedrooms, I find the Council’s assessment that these would provide double (or twin) bedrooms to be a reasonable conclusion. It therefore follows that the dwellings represent 3-bedroom, six person dwellings. Over three storeys, these require a minimum floor area of 108m2 according to Policy D6 of the LP.

The proposed dwellings would have an internal floor area of 101.5m2 which would fall short of the requirements of Policy D6 of the LP. On this basis, the main living space, kitchen and bathroom facilities are likely to feel cramped and inadequate to serve the needs of the potential occupiers, which could be catered for within the size of the proposed bedrooms.

Based on the above, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to internal living space. It would therefore be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP.

The proposal would generate housing delivery on a small site which would be beneficial to local housing needs. It would also incorporate sustainable measures such as solar photovoltaic panels and energy generated via an air source heat pump. The land outside of the proposed residential plots also presents the opportunity for biodiversity enhancements.

These represent social, economic, and environmental benefits of the proposal to which I have attached moderate weight. Nevertheless, they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified through the loss of protected open space and the inability to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers. I have attached significant weight to the combination of these harms.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.