Appeal 6004737

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the proposal also comprises refuse and cycle storage and parking. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

Although the proposal is described as a “detached two storey dwelling” in the Council’s decision notice, the Council’s officer’s report also describes it as a “single-storey dwelling with accommodation within the roofspace”. For clarity, I have assessed the scheme as shown on the submitted drawings.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to outlook, daylight, sunlight and privacy; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to floor-to-ceiling heights.

The appeal site sits between the rear gardens of 11 and [address] and an access route serving the rear gardens of 3 to [address], with a frontage facing onto [address]. It is mostly grassed and contains a garden shed and a single-storey outbuilding. It has already been separated from the rear gardens of Nos 11 and [address] of boundary fencing. While it does not appear to be currently in use as a private garden serving these properties, there is a gate which provides direct access to the rear garden of No 11 through the appeal site.

The terraced properties at 1 to [address] have a regular plot rhythm and rear gardens of broadly similar size, save for gardens of Nos 11 and 11A, which are shorter in depth due to the subdivision to form the appeal site. When viewed in the wider context from [address], the rear garden setting, including the appeal site, has an open and verdant character with soft landscaping and low-rise garden structures and outbuildings. Properties on [address] generally follow a consistent building line and plot rhythm with generous front gardens. This creates a uniform, spacious and uncluttered street scene which positively contributes to the local character.

The proposed detached dwelling would occupy most of the appeal site, with comparatively narrow areas of garden to the front and rear, an off-street parking space, and an external cycle and refuse storage to its side. The pitched-roof design would result in the proposed development being noticeably taller than the outbuildings and low-rise structures that are found in the surrounding gardens.

The proposed front flat-roof dormer would sit only slightly below the ridge and would occupy much of the front roof slope, adding substantial bulk to the roof form and thereby creating a top-heavy appearance. This would be contrary to the guidance with the Council’s Design and Development Control Guidelines (2004), which generally discourages front-facing dormers.

Although the proposed materials and façade treatment would reflect nearby developments, the height and bulk of the proposed development, together with the prominence of the front dormer, would result in a cramped and disproportionate built form relative to its plot size. In views along [address] and within nearby gardens, it would appear incongruous and would erode the established open and verdant character of the rear-garden setting. The proposed street elevation would also be significantly closer to the highway than the frontages of other properties on [address]. Due to this forward siting, which would be inconsistent with the established pattern of development, the proposal would appear discordant and visually intrusive within the otherwise spacious and uncluttered street scene.

The appellant refers to dormer windows and more forward building lines in the wider area, but limited detail has been provided. From my site observations and the evidence before me, large, flat-roofed front dormers are not found along [address]. In the wider area, including the terrace at 1–[address] and properties at 1–[address], building lines are generally consistent along the respective streets which they front. Although the appeal site is not within a conservation area, the appeal proposal would not accord with this established pattern, given its large front dormers and a front building line that would be inconsistent with neighbouring properties fronting the same street.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) (the LP), which, in summary, seek high-quality design that responds positively to local character, with a layout, height, scale and massing that are compatible with the surrounding area.

I have had regard to Policy DP2 of the LP, which addresses residential development on backland and infill sites, including development on residential gardens and amenity spaces. The parties dispute whether the site should be described as “backland development”, not least because the plot would have a street frontage. In any event, irrespective of whether it would constitute “backland development”, the proposal would introduce a new dwelling into land with an established garden context, and the resulting siting and form that would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Nonetheless, as this policy is not referred to in the Council’s reason for refusal, and I have not been directed to specific wording within the policy that relates to character and appearance, Policy DP2 has not been determinative of my conclusion on this issue.

Rear-facing windows in Nos 11 and 11A face towards the appeal site. While some appear to be obscure glazed, others clearly serve habitable rooms. [address] also shares part of its boundary with the appeal site. [address] also has side windows that face towards the appeal site across the access route, with boundary treatment in between.

The Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document Part 1 – [name] (2025) (the [name]) advises that new flank walls parallel to existing habitable windows should generally be at least 16m apart in order to protect outlook, light and privacy.

The proposed flank wall facing Nos 11 and 11A would be positioned approximately 7.5m from their rear elevations, substantially below the separation distance advised in the [name]. It would also be aligned broadly parallel with, and would directly face, the rear elevations of Nos 11 and 11A. Given the height and bulk of the proposed dwelling, together with the limited separation distance and this directly opposing relationship, the proposed development would appear unduly dominant and overbearing in views from the rear windows and gardens of Nos 11 and 11A. It would therefore result in an unacceptably visually oppressive outlook for the occupiers of these properties.

While the proposal would also be visible from No 9 and other properties further along the terrace, taking into account the separation distance, oblique viewing angles and the proposed pitched roof form, it would not be of such a scale as to have a detrimental impact on the outlook of those properties, which would remain principally across their own generous rear gardens.

Based on the evidence before me, the close proximity and the relationship between the proposed dwelling and the rear elevations of Nos 11 and [address] to a reasonable concern that the proposal could cause a harmful reduction in the levels of daylight and sunlight received by these neighbouring occupiers. In the absence of any submitted daylight/sunlight assessment to demonstrate otherwise, I am not satisfied that the proposal would safeguard acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight for the occupiers of Nos 11 and 11A.

Given the orientation of the rear elevations of No 9 and the properties further along the terrace, together with their separation distance from the proposed development, I consider it unlikely that the proposal would result in an unacceptable reduction in the levels of daylight and sunlight received by their occupiers.

In respect of [address], the Council raises no concerns regarding the proposal’s impact on its occupiers’ outlook, daylight and sunlight. I see no reason to conclude otherwise, given the separation distance across the access route, the intervening boundary treatment, and the fact that its side windows facing the appeal site serve non-habitable rooms.

Regarding privacy, while there would be no proposed window on side elevations, the rear dormer window would have the potential for direct overlooking towards the rear garden of No 9. However, this window is proposed to be an opaque window, and any such harm could be mitigated by a suitably worded condition requiring the relevant dormer window to be obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7m above finished floor level, should the appeal otherwise have been allowed. With particular regard to the front dormer window, mutual overlooking between properties is also common in relatively urban environments such as this, and the public highway provides sufficient separation between the appeal site and properties opposite. Overall, the proposal would not result in any harmful loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers.

I am satisfied that the proposed development would be acceptable in respect of privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. However, for the reasons given above, it would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of Nos 11 and 11A with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DP11 of the Local Plan, which, amongst other considerations, requires development to protect the amenity of existing occupiers.

The Council also refers to the LP Policy SP5 in its reasons for refusal. From the evidence before me, this policy is primarily related to placemaking. I have not been directed to specific wording within the policy that relates to this particular main issue. As my conclusion on this main issue is clearly supported by Policy DP11, SP5 has not been determinative in my consideration of neighbouring living

Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) requires a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75% of all self-contained dwellings’ gross internal floor areas to ensure adequate daylight penetration, ventilation and cooling, and sense of space.

The appellant contends that the Council had ample opportunity to request for sectional drawings but had not done so. Notwithstanding the elevational drawings provided, no sectional drawings have been submitted before me during the appeal to indicate the proposed ceiling heights. This is particularly important in relation to the headroom at the loft level, where a significant proportion of its floor area, including one of the bedrooms, would be located beneath the rear roof slope. [name] am unable to ascertain the proposed ceiling heights based on the evidence before me, the proposed development fails to demonstrate that it would provide acceptable levels of light, ventilation, thermal comfort, and a sense of space for the future occupants.

I have considered whether a planning condition could secure compliance with the minimum ceiling height requirement. However, achieving the required heights could necessitate changes to the rear dormer form and/or overall height, which in turn would evolve the design of the scheme and have consequential effects on character and appearance and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Opportunities would also need to be provided to interested parties to comment on the change. It would therefore not be reasonable or appropriate to impose such a

Overall, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, due to the likely oppressive and uncomfortable living environment arising from inadequate floor-to-ceiling heights. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan, which, amongst other considerations, requires a high-quality living environment is provided for residents of new developments.

The Council and interested parties raised concerns as to whether the proposal would provide a high standard of usable outdoor amenity space for future occupiers. However, compliance with the London Plan standards for private outdoor space is not in dispute, and there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the proposed amenity space would be unacceptable in this respect or harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers.

I note the concerns raised by interested parties in relation to outlook and privacy for future occupiers, and the proposal’s impact on matters such as on-street parking, waste management, biodiversity, noise and disturbance, flood risk and drainage. The Council has not raised concerns in respect of these matters, and the Local Highway Authority raised no objection, subject to conditions. There is no substantive evidence before me to lead me to a different conclusion.

Interested parties have also raised concerns about potential impacts on vulnerable elderly residents. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires decision-makers, in exercising their functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have considered these matters, but they do not alter my conclusions on the main issues in this particular appeal.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and would fail to demonstrate acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. It would therefore conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would deliver one additional dwelling, making a modest contribution to housing choice and supply, with associated social and economic benefits during construction and following occupation. These matters weigh in favour of the proposal.

Although the application form refers to a potential self-build opportunity, and an exemption statement has been submitted by the appellant, the proposal is for market housing, and no mechanism has been put forward to secure delivery as self-build. Even if the custom/self-build housing had been secured through an appropriate mechanism, which would also confirm that the scheme is exempt from the requirements for biodiversity net gain, it would do not alter my conclusions on

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) supports the effective use of land and the delivery of homes in sustainable locations. However, it also places great importance on achieving well-designed places and on maintaining a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. In this case, the harms identified above attract significant weight and are not outweighed by the modest benefits of a single additional dwelling.

The evidence before me does not identify any shortfall in the supply or delivery of housing in the Borough. In any event, the harm that would arise from the proposed development carries significant weight and the benefits of one additional dwelling in terms of housing supply are inherently modest.

Having had regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places, I conclude that the harm arising from the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. Even if there is a relevant shortfall in housing supply or delivery, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as articulated in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the proposed development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.