Appeal 6005537

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of two-storey end of terrace dwelling with pitched roof following the demolition of existing garages at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01718/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

An application for costs was submitted by [address] Ltd against the Council of the London Borough of Bexley. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal submission includes a Transport and Highways Planning Appeal Statement (February 2026) which includes the results of a car parking survey undertaken on 27 January and 5 February 2026. It is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on which interested people’s views were sought.

In this case, the Transport and Highways Planning Appeal Statement and car parking survey provide additional information in relation to the Council’s and third parties’ concerns about local car parking conditions, rather than any amendments to the proposal. For this reason, I consider that there would be no prejudice to any party by considering the additional information. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the additional information.

A signed unilateral undertaking (UU) was submitted by the appellant during the course of the appeal. This planning obligation would not evolve the development or fundamentally change it from what was originally under consideration by the Council. I am satisfied that there is no procedural or substantive reason not to accept the obligation.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety and residential amenity, with particular regard to on-street parking pressure.

The appeal site is located at the end of a narrow residential no through road. It is occupied by a single storey garage and an area of landscaped land to the rear. [address] is lined by two storey terraced dwellings, which either front immediately onto the public highway or are set back behind small front yards which are often marked by dwarf walls or fences.

The majority of dwellings on this stretch of [address] have no off-street car parking. As a result, vehicles park on either side of the street along its entire length. The main parties are in agreement that the appeal site is located within the Sidcup Town Centre Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), and that the appeal site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3, which indicates a moderate level of public transport accessibility.

The Council and interested parties indicate that the road already experiences high parking demand as a result of existing demand and parking restrictions on nearby roads. On my visit, which I acknowledge is a snapshot in time, I experienced [address] to be heavily parked during late morning on a weekday.

The appeal site is within an area defined as a Sustainable Development Location by the Bexley Local Plan (2023) (BLP). My attention has been drawn to BLP Policy DP23 which states that parking provision below London Plan (2021) (LP) maximum car parking standards may be acceptable in areas that have a PTAL of 3 – 4.

Policy T6 of the LP seeks to restrict car parking provision in accordance with levels of public transport accessibility and connectivity, requiring development to provide only the minimum necessary parking. Specifically, Policy T6.1 of the LP sets out maximum, rather than minimum, car parking standards. For the appeal proposal, this allows for a maximum provision of up to one parking space per three-bedroom residential unit in outer London areas with a PTAL rating of 3. However, both the LP and BLP policies confirm that provision below this level can be permissible.

Significantly, the appeal site is within walking distance of local shops, including a large supermarket, and facilities in Sidcup as well as [name] and local bus services and has been evidenced as having moderate access to public transport. Future occupiers would therefore benefit from opportunities to travel by modes other than by private vehicles, reducing reliance on these and the requirement for on-site parking.

The parking survey submitted with the appeal was undertaken in accordance with the ‘[name] (LM) guidance. The survey area, as defined within the submission, included [address] and [address]. It assessed the total number of available parking spaces, the total number of vehicles parked, and expressed parking stress as a percentage. The LM adopts an 85% parking stress threshold, above which capacity is considered to be close to being reached; any level at or above this threshold is regarded as indicating high parking stress. This threshold has not been disputed by the Council.

The parking survey indicates that local parking stress within a 200-metre walking distance of the site is approximately 80%, which is below the 85% threshold. The Council suggests that a single additional vehicle could increase demand beyond this threshold. However, the proposal would create one additional on-street parking space outside the property, as access to the existing garages on the appeal site would no longer need to be kept clear. Consequently, a single additional vehicle would have no material impact on the recorded 80% parking stress level. Furthermore, I note that, at the request of the Council, a non-standard parking bay length of 5.5 metres was used in the survey. This exceeds the 5.0 metres standard parking bay length specified by the LM. In the absence of any substantive justification for using the larger bay length, it appears to me that there may be further additional parking capacity beyond that identified in the survey.

Therefore, in the event that there was limited additional on-street parking demand as a result of the development, this would not result in unacceptable congestion or harm to highway safety. In coming to this view, I have taken into account that the CPZ operates from 9am to 5.30pm Monday to Saturdays, and that drivers, including visitors to Sidcup town centre could park on [address] outside these hours. However, a large proportion of the parking survey was undertaken outside the CPZ’s operational hours and therefore reflected times when the CPZ restrictions were not in place. The CPZ hours are outside the remit of this decision and, it seems to me, that the Council could vary its operational hours if this was considered appropriate. Equally, concerns about inappropriate car parking could be addressed through parking enforcement.

I have considered the requirement for a planning obligation in the light of the statutory tests contained in Regulation 122 of the [name] (CIL) Regulations 2010. [name] have found that it has been demonstrated that on-street parking could be safely achieved for the proposed development without adding unacceptable parking stress on the nearby residential streets, I cannot be certain that a legal agreement is necessary or fairly and reasonably related in scale or kind to the proposal before me. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal without taking the appellant’s UU into consideration.

Interested parties have raised concerns that additional vehicle movements from occupiers and their associated deliveries and visitors would adversely affect the flow of local traffic, and that this would affect access to [address] for emergency services and refuse collection. During my site visit, I observed that [address] is particularly narrow and that the existing situation with cars parked either side of the street significantly reduces its accessible width. However, it seems to me, that the addition of a single dwelling located at the end of this residential street would result in limited additional comings and goings throughout the week, which would not have a material impact on the existing situation. As a result, there would not be unacceptable harm in this regard.

In finding no unacceptable harm, there would be no conflict with Policy T4 of the LP or Policies SP10, DP11 and DP24 of the BLP insofar as they seek to ensure that new development does not compromise highway safety, or unacceptably affect occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Interested parties have raised concerns in relation to construction noise and disturbance, parking issues during construction, increases in deliveries, damage to local roads, parked cars and neighbouring properties and safety and traffic implications in the area during construction. I have sympathy for existing occupiers as development of this nature would inevitably give rise to some disruption. However, the works would be time limited and I have found that it would not be reasonable to withhold consent on this basis alone. I have imposed a planning condition requiring the submission of a Demolition and [name] and Logistics Plan to manage the highway and living conditions impacts during construction. There is no evidence before me to indicate that a road closure order would be required. However, this would be controlled by a separate procedure, and this does not affect the acceptability of the appeal proposal in terms of its planning merits.

Interested parties have raised concerns about the impacts on a combined sewer which is thought to run beneath the appeal site. The appellant indicates that the drainage report submitted with the appeal contains an Asset Plan from [name]. This does not identify a combined sewer within the appeal site. Regardless, in the event that further investigations encountered sewer infrastructure, further discussions with [name] would be required. In relation to concerns about drainage, I have imposed a planning condition requiring the submission of details regarding a sustainable urban drainage scheme at the appeal site.

Concerns have been raised about a loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers. Given the orientation of the proposal, views from the upper floor windows would be directed to the rear of its garden in the same manner as other properties on [address], and as is common in tight-knit urban locations such as the appeal site. Consequently, I do not find harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

It has been suggested that [address] should be within a conservation area due to its historic value. I have assessed the proposal based on the street’s current planning designations. Regardless, a two storey dwelling with a roof matching the ridge and eaves height of the adjacent dwelling would not appear out of character within the street. Overall, I have been provided with no substantive evidence which would prompt me to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on these matters which was that there would be no unacceptable harm to the character of [address].

I note concerns in relation to the accuracy of the submitted drawings. However, from my review of the proposal on site, the submitted drawings appeared to be accurate. I have no reason to doubt therefore that the drawings are correct. I also note that the Council raise no issue in this respect.

Any concerns expressed regarding the appellants’ engagement with residents during the planning process are outside the remit of this appeal decision. I have noted the concerns with regard to structural stability. However, these matters are for consideration under building regulations and any dispute would be a private matter between the owners.

I have had regard to the planning conditions that have been suggested by the Council. I have considered them against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (Framework) and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have made such amendments as necessary to comply with those documents and for clarity and consistency.

In addition to the standard time limit, I have imposed an approved plans condition in the interests of certainty.

Given the tight-knit nature of the area I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of a Demolition and Construction Logistics Plan in order to minimise the effects of the construction on local occupiers. Details of a sustainable urban drainage scheme are required in the interests of surface water management. In the interest of contamination remediation I have imposed the suggested condition requiring a desk top study and site assessment to survey and characterise the nature and extent of any contamination.

Conditions related to external materials, soft landscaping, and refuse storage are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. I have imposed the Council’s suggested condition related to cycle parking in order to promote sustainable travel.

I have also imposed a condition requiring details of sustainable design measures, in order to ensure that sustainable design is factored into the build process. However, I have modified the condition as I do not consider that the details are necessary prior to commencement. I have also imposed a condition requiring the inclusion of water efficiency measures in the interests of sustainable design.

Given my findings in relation to the main issue, I have not imposed the Council’s suggested condition which would prevent the future occupiers from applying for a car parking permit. Bearing in mind the PPG’s advice regarding the blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic alterations, I have not been provided with sufficient evidence as to why it would be reasonable or necessary to restrict permitted development rights for the dwelling. Therefore, I have omitted the Council’s suggested condition which would remove permitted development rights for the new dwelling.

For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan and the Framework. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site plan S_101; Existing east elevation E_103; Existing ground floor plan E_101; Existing north elevation E_104; Existing roof plan E_102; Existing south elevation E_106; Existing west elevation E_105; Proposed block plan P_110; Proposed east elevation P_104; Proposed first floor plan P_102; Proposed ground floor plan P_101; Proposed north elevation P_105; Proposed roof plan P_103; Proposed south elevation P_107; Proposed west elevation P_106; and Site location plan.

No development shall take place until a Demolition and [name] and Logistics Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include details of: • construction methods and techniques; • management of construction and associated vehicle movements and parking, including deliveries of construction materials. • means of minimising noise and vibration (including any piling), and compliance with BS 5228; • means of minimising dust and similar emissions, in accordance with Air Quality: Best Practice Guidance - The Control of Dust and [name] and Demolition Supplementary Planning Guidance (published by the Greater London Authority, July 2014); • construction site lighting; • the location of notice boards on the site to include details of the site manager, including contact details (phone, email, postal address) and ‘out of hours’ contact details. The measures specified in the approved Demolition and [name] and Logistics Plan shall be implemented prior to the commencement of development and shall be adhered to during the period of construction.

No development (excluding demolition) shall take place until a scheme for a [name] in accordance with the [name] and [name] (2018) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include details of: i. How reduction in surface water runoff to the greenfield runoff rate shall be achieved; ii. Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed system is fit for purpose, including correctly sized attenuation and surface water discharge rates; iii. Installation of petrol/oil interceptors as necessary; iv. Distribution of foul water flows into the surrounding sewer network as necessary; v. Installation of rainfall attenuation units for capturing and reusing water; vi. Information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control surface water discharged from the site and measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; vii. A timetable for its implementation; viii. A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. The Scheme must demonstrate how the drainage hierarchy set out in London Plan Policy SI13 has been followed: • 1st rainwater use as a resource (for example rainwater harvesting, blue roofs for irrigation) • 2nd rainwater infiltration to ground at or close to source • 3rd rainwater attenuation in green infrastructure features for gradual release (for example green roofs, rain gardens) • 4th rainwater discharge direct to a watercourse (unless not appropriate) • 5th controlled rainwater discharge to a surface water sewer or drain • 6th controlled rainwater discharge to a combined sewer. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

A: No development shall take place until: i. A desktop study and site walkover shall be undertaken and submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority. This study shall include details on the site’s history, potentially contaminative site uses and any other relevant information that can be used to identify all contaminant-pathway receptor pollution linkages as part of a Conceptual Site Model. ii. If the approved desk top study shows that further investigation is necessary, an Investigation and Risk Assessment, including relevant soil gas surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by competent person(s). A written report of the findings shall be produced and submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority. iii. If the approved Investigation and Risk Assessment shows that remediation is necessary, a detailed [name] to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The Scheme shall include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives, remediation criteria, timetable and site management procedures. iv. The development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details (a-c), as necessary. B: During the course of the development: i. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Before development restarts at that part of the site a Risk Assessment and [name] shall be produced by (a) suitably qualified person(s) and submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority. ii. The development may only restart on that part of the site in accordance with the approved [name]. [name] to occupation/first use i. A Verification Report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the works carried out pursuant to approved details in relation to [name] and B of this condition shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority. ii. No occupation or use of the development shall take place until the Report has been approved.

The development shall not be occupied until a scheme for soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscaping scheme shall include: i. A planting plan; ii. A written specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with trees, plants and grass); iii. A schedule of plants and trees, setting out the species, sizes, numbers/densities and soil volume and soil type/quality; iv. A programme setting out how the plan will be put into practice including measures for protecting plants and trees for the operational phase of the development; v. Detailed pit construction and planting methodology for all planting; vi. [name] should adhere to Government biosecurity recommendations - as outlined in the Arboriculture Association’s ‘Biosecurity guidance: notes’ - or Government approved/ adopted documentation, which supersedes this; vii. and, if an engineered solution (e.g. soil cells or structured soils) for planting is required, the detailed specification and methodology for the system to be used. The new planting shall be carried out in the first planting and/or seeding season following the first occupation of the building or the practical completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. The new planting shall comply with the requirements specified in BS 3936 (1992) 'Specification of [name] 1 Trees and Shrubs', and in BS 4428 (1989) 'Recommendations for General Landscape Operations'. None of the new trees, plants or shrubs planted shall be lopped or topped within a period of five years from the completion of the development. Any trees, plants or shrubs, which, within a period of five years from the practical completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species to those originally planted. Thereafter, the approved landscaping scheme shall be maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance plan in perpetuity.

The development shall not progress above the damp proof course of the new house until a detailed schedule and specification of the materials and finishes to be used has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include: • Brickwork (including bonding and mortar); • Cladding • Windows and doors (including reveals and frames); • Soffits; • External guttering; • Roofing tiles; • Boundary treatments The works shall be carried out in full accordance with the details approved prior to the first occupation of the development and maintained thereafter.

The development shall not progress above the damp proof course of the new house until details of sustainable design measures to address the requirements of Policy DP30 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such thereafter.

The development shall not be occupied until details of secure, covered and conveniently located parking facilities for two bicycles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be installed before the development is occupied and shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

The development shall not be occupied until the storage for refuse and recycling shown on the approved drawings has been installed. The storage shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

The development shall not be occupied until it has been constructed to comply with Building Regulations Optional Requirement Approved Document G2 – Water efficiency (2015 edition). Prior to occupation of the development evidence of the development’s compliance shall be issued to the building control body appointed for the development in the appropriate [name], Application, or Building Notice, or [name] to enable the building control body to check compliance. END OF SCHEDULE