Appeal 6005091

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with all matters reserved. I have considered the appeal accordingly. A plan has been submitted as part of the application which indicates how a dwelling could be accommodated on the site. I have taken this plan into account for indicative purposes only.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on a protected Oak tree.

The appeal site is within a predominantly residential area, primarily comprised of rows of two storey, terraced dwellings of similar form and appearance. The dwelling within the appeal site forms an anomaly to the prevailing character comprising a semi-detached property, with a detached single storey garage to the side.

Residential plots in the surrounding area are typically long, narrow and rectangular with generous rear gardens. The rear gardens (and associated outbuildings and garages) of the neighbouring dwellings which sit perpendicular to the appeal site, along Eden Park Avenue, are served by an access road immediately adjacent to the appeal site.

Trees feature frequently in the surrounding area, both along the street and in glimpsed views in rear gardens. There is a large Oak tree situated within the adjacent access road to the northeast of the appeal site, which is protected by a tree preservation order (TPO). This specimen in particular holds strong visual amenity value, contributing positively to the overall sub-urban character of the surrounding area.

Policy 3 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) relates in part to garden land development, stating that such forms of new residential development will only be considered acceptable subject to several criteria, one of which relates to there being no unacceptable impact upon the character, appearance and context of an area. Policies 4 and 37 of the BLP collectively refer to the design of development, requiring proposals to compliment the quality of the surrounding area. These broadly correspond with Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which refers to delivering good design.

The appeal proposal has been submitted in outline and therefore the precise positioning of the proposed dwelling is not at this stage known. It is indicated that it could be positioned attached to the existing dwelling, following the same building lines to the front and rear.

Notwithstanding the indicative plans, given the overly modest plot size which tapers significantly inwards to the rear, an additional residential plot in this location would lead to a cramped and incongruous form of development. Even if an adequate dwelling and garden size could be achieved, the resultant plot which would remain from the severance of the appeal site would be substantially smaller than residential plots in the surrounding area, failing to successfully assimilate with the established urban grain.

Whilst it may be possible to design a dwelling which corresponds in its scale and materials to the neighbouring plots, the experience of the development does not relate solely to the appearance of built form within the street scene. The cramped and contrived nature of the development would also be experienced from the adjacent access road and neighbouring plots. Difficulty in replicating historic spacious standards does not justify the proposed significant deviation from the established character of the area.

The submitted Arboriculture Impact Assessment confirms that the Oak tree adjacent to the appeal site, which is protected by a TPO, is in a good physiological and structural condition, with a full crown showing some minor branch loss.

Policy 73 of the BLP requires proposals for new development to take particular account of existing trees on the site and on adjoining land, including in respect to their amenity value. Policy 74 of the BLP seeks to improve the amenity and conservation value of trees, partly through appropriate beneficial management.

Although the exact position of the proposed dwelling is unknown, the size and proximity of the Oak tree would be a limiting factor to the available development area. Even if a dwelling were to be capable of being built on the appeal site outside of the root protection area (RPA) of the Oak tree, given the physical constraints of the site, the RPA and canopy of the tree is highly likely to extend across the majority of the rear garden area for the proposed dwelling.

There is an acknowledgment within the evidence before me that the presence of the tree already has an impact on existing residential gardens. Whilst the appellant’s investment in the health and longevity of the tree is admirable, it is by no means a guarantee that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would hold the tree in the same value, particularly given its impact would be greater noting a closer proximity.

It may be that the prospective dwelling purchasers would initially place a high value on the contribution which the tree makes to the setting of the dwelling, failing to appreciate the full implications of living next to a large tree. Even if there are public parks in relatively close proximity to the appeal site, I find it reasonable that future occupiers would favour use of their own garden.

It would be extremely difficult for the Council to resist applications for future and persistent pruning, particularly if they related to matters of safety. Trees within public parks are not directly comparable given that they are experienced in a transient nature, rather than becoming a persistent nuisance as would be the case for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

Rather than being an indication of hypothetical future behaviour, given the extent to which the Oak tree would likely dominate the garden of the proposed dwelling, the pressure for future works and potential felling would likely be materially intensified. Over time, this would lead to the deterioration or even total loss of the existing amenity value provided by the Oak tree, which would compound the harmful effect to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Based on the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would also likely lead to future harm and subsequent loss of amenity value to the nearby protected Oak tree. I have therefore identified conflict with Policies 3, 4, 37, 73 and 74 of the BLP, as well as Policy D4 of the LP.

The Council’s reason for refusal also refers to Policy D6 of the LP. This policy overall is concerned with achieving adequate housing standards, in part relating to internal and outdoor space. Given the outline nature of the proposal, the precise form of the development is not known and consequently, I have identified no specific conflict with Policy D6 of the LP arising from the appeal proposal. Nevertheless, a lack of conflict with this policy does not outweigh the overall conflict with the development plan referred to above.

The examples provided of how trees can interact with built form are not comparable to the outline nature of the appeal proposal before me. I have therefore attached these examples very little weight in my consideration of the appeal.

I note that the proposal received support during the Council’s consideration of the application, albeit I have not been presented with the basis for this support. I also note that the Council did not identify harm in relation to several matters including highway impacts, drainage, or the likely effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Nevertheless, a lack of harm in these respects does not specifically weigh in favour of the proposal.

My attention has been drawn to a previous development nearby at 7 Crossways. I have limited details to the circumstances which led to that approval, including the full context of the plot which was developed. I therefore cannot be satisfied that the development at 7 Crossways is so directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me that it would lead me to alter my conclusions outlined above.

Equally an application for a rear / side extension at [address], or for two storey extension applications elsewhere, are materially different to the appeal proposal for a new dwelling.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council has confirmed that the present supply is 1.93 years which is a notable shortfall, demonstrating that the need for housing is pressing. Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework requires me to consider whether the adverse impacts of permitting the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Frameworks policies as a whole.

Even small developments present the opportunity to make a meaningful, immediate difference to housing land supply. The proposal would lead to the efficient development of a windfall site, in a location which has access to services and facilities. The benefits would be associated with a single dwelling, but I have nevertheless given them moderate weight.

As above, I have identified that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would also likely lead to future harm and subsequent loss of amenity value to a nearby protected Oak tree. I assign significant weight to the combination of these harms.

The proposal would be at odds with paragraph 135 of the Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character. It would also conflict with paragraph 136 of the Framework which recognises the important contribution which trees make to the character and quality of urban environments. Considering these provisions, I find the harm arising from the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The circumstances as set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework exist and so the presumption in favour of granting planning permission does not apply.

I have concluded that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which indicate planning permission should be granted. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.