Appeal 6004832

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • highway safety; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook and natural light for the occupiers of [address]; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would remove the garage which is currently within the grounds of the ‘donor’ property, [site address] (No 447). Following its removal, the occupiers of No 447 would depend on the off-street area to the front of the dwelling, adjacent to [address], for car parking.

The appellant indicates that car parking to the front of No 447 is existing and that no changes would be made to the arrangement. However, there is no dropped kerb to provide access across the pavement to the off-street area to the front of the dwelling. Traversing a pavement without a dropped kerb can lead to damage to the public highway as vehicles routinely ‘bump’ the kerb. The Council state, and it is not disputed by the appellant, that use of [address] for a vehicular access to No 447 is without prior approval of the Highway Authority.

[address] is a classified road which is designated as a [address] (LDR) within the Council’s road hierarchy. While the proposal does not seek to alter the layout of the area to the front of No 447, in order for the occupiers of the property to safely access the area, a formal vehicular crossover from [address] would be required.

The submitted evidence indicates that there is a presumption against vehicle accesses onto LDR’s unless it can be demonstrated that a vehicle can enter, park, turn and leave the site in a forward gear. In the absence of substantive evidence to demonstrate that this would be possible, the proposal would present an unacceptable risk to highway safety.

The access to the proposed dwelling from [address] would utilise an existing dropped kerb which currently provides access to a detached garage. The submitted evidence indicates that the crossover has long provided vehicular access to the rear of the plot. I am satisfied that the replacement of the garage with a single residential parking space would not materially affect the nature or frequency of vehicle movements when compared to the present circumstances. For this reason, I consider that reversing into or out of the appeal site from the front parking area onto [address] would not pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety.

In reaching this view, I have taken into account that the parking space would be positioned at an angle to the front of the dwelling and may require multiple manoeuvres to ensure that larger vehicles do not overhang the public highway.

However, for the reasons outlined above, the proposal would harm highway safety and would not comply with Policy T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) insofar as the policy expects appropriate car parking to be provided for developments.

The appeal site is separated from [address] (No 1) by a brick wall and timber panel fence which are approximately 1.8 metres in height.

Whilst an existing single storey garage would be demolished to make way for the proposal, the new bungalow would be taller than this and would extend significantly above the existing boundary fence. No 1’s side elevation contains windows which serve a bedroom, which is a habitable room, as well as a bathroom and utility room. In particular, the window to the bedroom is the sole source of natural light to that habitable room.

At the time of my site visit, the canopy structure1 to the side of No 1 had been removed and the bedroom received reasonable levels of light and had reasonable views of the open sky above the garage within the appeal site. 1 Identified within Figure 3 of the appellant’s Statement of Case

The roof of the bungalow would be hipped and would pitch away from the shared boundary. Its eaves line would be low. However, views from No 1’s side facing windows, in particular the bedroom window, would look directly onto the bungalow’s side elevation and roof with minimal separation distance. The combined depth, height and proximity of the bungalow to the window means that it would be a dominant and oppressive feature for neighbouring occupiers.

Neither main party has provided substantive evidence in relation to the effect of the proposal on natural light to No 1’s bedroom window. However, given the appeal site’s location to the south of No 1, the presence of a building of this depth, height and with limited separation from the bedroom window could overshadow it for long periods throughout the day. In the absence of substantive evidence, I cannot determine that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents in this regard.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address]. I therefore find that it would conflict with Policies SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) (BLP). Amongst other aspects, the policies seek to protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

[address] is lined by modestly sized bungalows set back from the highway behind small parking areas or front gardens. They generally have hipped roofs with front gables and rounded bay windows below. Predominant materials include white paintwork, render and red brickwork.

The proposed dwelling would front [address] and would be set back from the highway behind a small, hard landscaped car parking area. I find that the proposed height, mass, footprint and the hipped roof form would be broadly characteristic of the area. The hipped roof would pitch away from the boundary with the neighbouring property, No 1. This would help provide visual separation between the buildings.

The proposal would see a reduction in the size of No 447’s rear garden. [name] 447’s plot and the proposal’s plot would be smaller than adjacent properties’, the width of the retained amenity spaces would provide a reasonable separation distance between the donor property and the proposal. Whilst the proposed dwelling would have a short rear garden, this would not be especially apparent from public viewpoints and would not have a harmful effect on the character of the area.

The proposal would undoubtedly introduce built form within an area where currently this is limited. However, the dwelling’s modest proportions combined with its positioning within the plot would prevent the development from appearing cramped or harmfully at odds with the surrounding pattern of development. In reaching this view, I have taken into account that the plots to No 447 and the proposed dwelling would not exactly replicate the plot sizes of surrounding development.

I have been directed to a recent appeal decision 2 for the use of a property as a house in multiple occupation where the Inspector concluded that two freestanding structures, accommodating four 230-litre bins and six bicycles would be harmful to the character of the area. In the proposal before me, the proposed wooden cycle store would not be particularly large or tall and, as a result, would not be a prominent addition to the street scene. The effects of the two schemes therefore differ. Each development must be assessed on its own individual merits, and my conclusion is based on the specific characteristics and impacts of the proposal before me.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed dwelling would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies SP5 and DP11 of the BLP which, amongst other aims, seek to ensure high quality design which does not harm the street scene.

A significant number of concerns from third parties, including in relation to flood risk, surface water, overlooking and privacy have been raised in relation to the development. However, given my conclusions on the main issues and that the appeal is dismissed, there is no need for me to address these in further detail.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost housing supply and indicates the value of using suitable land within settlements for homes. It also encourages the optimal use of underutilised land, as do policies within the BLP and LP. The proposal would contribute to local housing supply, through the provision of a two bedroom home and would represent a more efficient use of the appeal site.

I acknowledge that the appeal site is within a Primary Residential Area as designated by the BLP and that residential development in this general location is acceptable in principle and the proposal may be compliant with various other provisions of the development plan, for instance in relation to the standard of accommodation. However, the absence of harm or conflict with other relevant development plan policies is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

I understand that the appellant undertook pre-application discussions with the Council in advance of the submission of the planning application. However, I am mindful that pre-application discussions are informal and not binding on any future decision the Council may make once a proposal has been subject to the formal planning process.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.