Appeal 6005618

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the re-development of garages on site between and part behind No 2 and [address], to provide 1 pair of semi-detached dwellings, each 3B5P, and 1No single storey(2B4P) dwelling at the rear, and private amenity spaces, and alterations to existing dropped kerb at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03671/FPA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] of Binouze Estates Limited against the London Borough of Bromley. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

There is considerable planning history at the appeal site. Planning permission was granted at appeal1 for the demolition of the garages and the erection of a three-bedroom detached house to the front of the appeal site and a detached bungalow to the rear part of the site (the 2024 scheme). The Inspector concluded that the scheme would relate well to the character and appearance of the area.

Following this, an application for the erection of a pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings to the front of the site and a single storey two-bedroom dwelling to the rear was refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal2 (the 2025 scheme). However, the Inspector found that whilst there would be moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area, the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against 1 APP/G5180/W/24/3343772 2 APP/G5180/W/25/3359916 the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) taken as a whole. Nonetheless, the Inspector found that the minimum information requirements relating to [name] (BNG) had not been met, and the appeal was dismissed on that basis.

The appeal before me is extremely similar to the 2025 scheme. The main differences are that BNG information has now been submitted and there has been a minor adjustment to the floor level and roof level of the dwelling to the rear of the site. This change was made following new flood risk data. All other elements of the proposal are extremely similar to the 2025 scheme.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a group of disused flat roofed garages positioned between 2 and [address] (No. 2 and No. 4). [address] predominately consists of two-storey terraced, semi-detached and detached houses, many of which have bay windows, gable features and varying roof forms. The properties generally maintain a consistent building line with modest front gardens or driveways. Together, these factors contribute to the cohesive and traditional suburban character of the street scene.

The dwelling to the rear of the site would be accessed via a pedestrian path to the side of the proposed pair of semi-detached dwellings. The overall scale of the property, its siting and modern design, would somewhat differ to that of other properties in the surrounding area. However, given the varied architectural styles and roof forms in the area, coupled with its discrete location to the rear of the proposed dwellings, it would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The Council similarly conclude in its appeal statement that it has no objection to the proposed single storey dwelling to the rear of the site. I am also mindful that the 2024 scheme granted planning permission for a similar dwelling in the rear part of the site, and the Inspector in the 2025 scheme similarly raised no objections in relation to the proposed dwelling to the rear. Whilst the ridge height would be marginally higher than that proposed under the 2025 scheme, the dwelling would remain minimally visible from the street scene. I therefore find no harm in this regard, nor do the Council.

The semi-detached dwellings to the front of the site would however be unduly narrow and constrained in form in comparison to the pattern of development in the area, which is predominantly characterised by wider plots, more generously proportioned dwellings and gardens of an increased depth. In this regard, the scheme would appear cramped and contrived and fail to relate well to the surrounding pattern of development.

To conclude, for the reasons set out above, the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Given the small scale of the development, and the fact that the effect on the character and appearance would be relatively localised, I consider the degree of harm to be moderate. It would therefore be contrary to Policies 3, 4 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (BLP) and Policies D3, D4 and H2 of the London Plan (LP). Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that respects the character, appearance and context of an area.

The Councils refusal reason also cites noncompliance with Policy 8 of the BLP. However, the scheme would meet the minimum side space requirement.

Bin storage areas, to accommodate three bins for each dwelling would be provided. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that this would be adequate. Additionally, if I were to allow the appeal, the submission of further details to include screening measures to the storage areas could be ensured through a planning condition. This condition could also ensure that the storage facilities are retained for their intended purpose.

The evidence before me outlines how the dwellings to the front of the site would have a floor area of 104.[address] metres (sqm) whilst the dwelling to the rear would have a floor area of 82.67sqm. This would exceed the requirements set out in the [name]. All rooms would benefit from acceptable levels of natural light and outlook, and each dwelling would provide private outdoor amenity space. Although the gardens would be smaller than most others in the area, they would be sufficient and suitable for the unit types proposed.

Sufficient separation distances between the proposed bungalow and neighbouring dwellings would ensure privacy to future occupiers of the bungalow. [name] were to allow the appeal, I could use a condition to ensure obscure glazing in the high-level windows on the side elevation of the bungalow facing the proposed semi-detached dwellings, in the interests of privacy. I am satisfied that there are sufficient separation distances between the proposed dwelling to the rear of the site and an electrical substation and communal bins on a neighbouring site. In any case, boundary treatment would separate the site from the substation and bins. There is no substantive evidence before me to confirm that dogs would disturb future occupiers of the proposed bungalow. Overall, the Council is satisfied that the scheme would ensure acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. For the reasons set out above, I agree with this conclusion.

The windows serving the single storey dwelling to the rear of the site would be situated at ground floor level. This, coupled with the boundary treatments, which could be ensured through a planning condition if I were to allow the appeal, and sufficient separation distances between the proposed bungalow and neighbouring properties, would ensure there is no unacceptable overlooking to neighbouring dwellings. [name] were to allow the appeal, I could also use a condition to ensure the flat roof of the bungalow is not used as a balcony or similar amenity area. The first-floor side windows of the semi-detached dwellings are secondary windows and therefore could be conditioned to ensure obscure glazing, in order to protect the privacy of neighbouring properties.

Given the small scale of the proposed bungalow, I do not consider that it would result in unacceptable harm to the outlook of neighbouring properties. Whilst it has been increased in height from a previous scheme, the increase is small and would not result in unacceptable harm. [name] were to allow the appeal, a planning condition requiring the submission of a full specification of the green roof could be used. This would ensure that any plant species are appropriate in size. In any case, whilst the green roof may add some height to the roof, this would be as a result of the plants, and the visual impact would be much softer in comparison to a taller dwelling.

Whilst there would be additional comings and goings as a result of the scheme, these would be residential in nature. Additionally, the dwellings, particularly the bungalow to the rear, would be relatively modest in size. Therefore, the occupancy levels would be comparable, or possibly lower, than other properties in the area. Overall, given the size of the dwellings and the suburban character of the area, any additional noise and disturbance would not be readily discernible and would not result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring properties. Given the size of the properties and separation distances between them and neighbouring dwellings, the scheme would not result in a harmful loss of light to neighbouring occupiers. There is no evidence before me to suggest that neighbouring amenity would be harmed by smells from toilets. Overall, the Council found no harm in relation to the schemes effect on neighbouring living conditions. For the reasons set out above, I agree with this conclusion.

The pair of semi-detached dwellings would each benefit from a parking space, however the bungalow to the rear would not have any off-street parking. A parking survey has been submitted. The surveys were undertaken overnight on a weeknight, as this is generally the time when residential parking is at its highest as residents are typically at home. The surveys found that parking stress in the area surrounding the appeal site was at 61.5%, with numerous parking spaces available. Similarly, at the time of my site visit, I observed several parking spaces available. I am therefore satisfied that any additional on street parking demand, particularly as result of the proposed bungalow, would not cause unacceptable impacts on parking levels in the locality. The Council also found that the scheme would have a minimal impact on parking in the area.

There is little evidence before me to demonstrate that the two vehicle accesses on [address] would create a highway danger. It can reasonably be expected that any future occupiers would enter and exit the driveways in a safe and legal manner. Whilst the scheme may add some additional vehicle movements to the surrounding area, the increase would be minimal and would not result in harm to highway safety or traffic conditions. I do not find any harm associated with the pedestrian access for the dwelling to the rear of the site. The Council has similarly not raised any concerns in this regard.

The scheme would include the planting of several trees. There is no substantive evidence to suggest that these would cause drainage or subsidence issues. Concerns have been raised that the trees may overhang or cause loss of light to neighbouring properties. [name] were to allow the appeal, I could use a planning condition requiring further details to include size, species and positions of all trees, in order to avoid such issues.

BNG is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021) (the Act). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. As such, unless specifically exempt, the development would be subject to the mandatory BNG condition, which requires the delivery of at least 10% BNG.

Several concerns are raised in relation to submitted BNG report. A representation from an interested party sets out how a hedge has been removed from the site in recent years. However, based on what’s before me, I cannot be sure what type of hedge this was, or to what extent it would change the findings of the BNG report if it had been included. Additionally, the survey information and opinions in the report were prepared and provided in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s code of professional conduct. The Council also raise no concerns in relation to the submitted report. As such, after carefully considering the interested party’s points, on balance and based on the evidence before me, I agree with the Council’s conclusion that the scheme would be complaint with policy in this regard. Additionally, if I were to allow the appeal, I could use a planning condition which would require the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved specification of both hard and soft landscaping details.

The evidence before me indicates that neighbour consultation letters were sent on 8th August 2025, and re-consultation letters following receipt of amended plans were sent on 10th November 2025. A site notice was also displayed in August

Based on interested party submissions, it appears that they were aware of amendments made to the scheme during the planning application process. In any case, I have carefully considered the implications of the amended height of the rear bungalow and have found no harm in this regard.

Whilst numerous planning applications involving the site may have been submitted over the last number of years, this in itself is not a reason to dismiss the scheme. There is little evidence before me to indicate that the scheme would cause social tensions. I have not been directed to any planning policy which would require a scheme of this size to include affordable housing. The Council has not raised any concerns regarding emergency service access; I see no reason to disagree with this. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the scheme would result in damage to garage walls positioned on the site boundaries or cause subsidence to neighbouring properties. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the scheme would result in pests and flies in the area. There is no sufficiently authoritative evidence before me to confirm that there are bats, or other protected species, on the site. Additionally, the Council has raised no such concerns.

[name] were to allow the appeal, a planning condition requiring the submission of a construction method statement could be used, to maintain highway and pedestrian safety and safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents.

A surface water flood study was submitted alongside the application. The modelling demonstrates the low risk of surface water flooding to the development and neighbouring properties. The Council’s drainage officer has reviewed the flood study and has no objection to the scheme. [name] also have no objection to the scheme. For the reasons set out, I agree with their conclusion. [name] were to allow the appeal, I could use a planning condition requiring further details of a surface water drainage scheme.

[name] acknowledge that the site already benefits from planning permission for two dwellings, I have considered the scheme before me, which would deliver three new dwellings.

I acknowledge the concerns of interested parties over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the Framework. The Council has confirmed that the present supply is 1.93 years which is a significant 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.

The appeal scheme would deliver three dwellings on a derelict brownfield site. This would make a small yet meaningful contribution towards the borough’s housing supply. Additionally, the Framework indicates that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out quickly. I therefore attach substantial weight to these factors. However, the associated benefits of the scheme would be moderate given the small-scale of the development.

Balanced against the moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area, the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out at paragraph 11 applies. Given this, there are material considerations that indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the

I note that the Inspector for the 2025 scheme similarly found that the moderate harm would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits associated with the scheme. Notably, in the 2025 scheme the Council had a 2.4-year supply of deliverable housing sites, compared to a 1.93-year supply at present. The reduction in supply means that the delivery of housing is now even more imperative.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions in the interests of precision and enforceability.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

A pre-commencement condition requiring assessment of the risks posed by any contamination is necessary to ensure environmental and public safety. To avoid duplication, I have combined the Council’s suggested conditions regarding contamination. A pre-commencement condition requiring the submission of a construction method statement is necessary to maintain highway and pedestrian safety and to safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents. This condition would include details of measures to control noise and the emission of dust and dirt during construction.

A pre-commencement condition is used to ensure the submission a landscaping plan in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and the living conditions of neighbours. I have also used a pre-commencement condition requiring the submission of boundary treatment details, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbours. A pre commencement condition requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme is used to ensure a satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to reduce the risk of flooding.

In the interests of the visual amenity of the area, a condition requiring details of all external materials is used. A condition requiring details of external lighting is also used in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and the living conditions of neighbours.

A condition to ensure that refuse and recycling facilities are provided, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area is used. In relation to highway safety and the promotion of sustainable transport, conditions requiring electric vehicle charging points, cycle storage, the formation and retention of the parking areas and the implementation of the new vehicle crossover and closure of the existing crossover are used.

Suggested condition number 15 refers to obscure glazing on a rooflight. However, these windows would be positioned in the roof and at an angle. I therefore do not consider it necessary to ensure that they are fitted with obscure glazing, as any opportunities for overlooking from them would be negligible. Instead, I have amended the wording of the condition to require obscure glazing in the first-floor side windows of the semi-detached properties, as referenced in the Council’s case officer report. I have also included the windows on the side elevation, facing the proposed semi-detached properties, of the property to the rear of the site to ensure the privacy of future occupiers.

I have used a condition to ensure the floor levels are in accordance with the approved drawings, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. I have also used a condition to ensure the flat roof area of the dwelling to the rear of the site is not used as a balcony or similar amenity area, in the interests of the privacy. Finally, I have used a condition to remove certain permitted development rights. Given the moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area, I consider that such a condition is necessary and justified in order to prevent further harm.

Various other conditions are referenced in the Council’s case officer report. However, I do not have the exact wording of these conditions, nor the reason for their inclusion. Additionally, they are not included in the Council’s list of conditions in its submitted appeal statement. Given the above, I have not included them.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. However, in this case material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • 340 PL 001 Rev 1 • 340 PL020 Rev 3 • 340 PL0021 Rev 0 • 340 PL0022 Rev 0 • 340 PL0023 Rev 0 • 340 PL 0024 Rev 4 • 340 PL0025 Rev 3 • 340 PL0026 Rev 0 • 340 PL0029

No development, including any works of demolition, shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i. a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; ii. the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii. a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: i. additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii. a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: • areas for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; • the loading and unloading of plant and materials; • the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; • the erection and maintenance of security hoarding; • measures to control noise, and the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and, • delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No development shall take place until a full specification of all hard and soft landscaping of the site, including the green roof, together with a timetable for their implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The specification of the hard landscaping shall include details of its permeability. The specification of the soft landscaping shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all trees and planting, as well as how they will be planted and protected, and the proposed time of planting. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved specification of both hard and soft landscaping details. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Notwithstanding the submitted details and approved plans, no development shall take place until precise details of all boundary treatment to the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, together with a timetable for implementation. The details shall include the height, design, and finish, and include details and stability of any retained structures. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

Prior to any works above ground level, precise details of all external materials to be used on the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, refuse and recycling storage facilities shall be provided in accordance with the locations shown on drawing no. 340 PL020 rev.3 along with screening measures, the details of which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the refuse storage facilities shall be retained in perpetuity for their intended purpose.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the new vehicular crossover and the closure of the existing crossover in front of the appeal site shall have been fully implemented in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, details of electric vehicle charging for each dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, secure cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with that shown on drawing no. 340 PL020 Rev 3. Thereafter these secure cycle parking areas shall be retained in perpetuity for this use and not used for any other purpose.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with drawing no. 340 PL020 Rev 3. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

Prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the first-floor windows on the side elevation of the semi-detached properties and the ‘hi level’ windows serving the bedrooms of the dwelling to the rear of the site shall be fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the ground and floor levels shown on the approved drawings; namely drawing Nos. 340 PL0025 Rev 3, 340 PL024 Rev 4 and 340 PL0020 Rev 3.

The flat roof area of the dwelling to the rear of the site shall not be used as a balcony, terrace or similar amenity area.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no building, structure, extension, enlargement or alteration permitted by Class A, B, C, or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended), shall be erected or made within the curtilages of the dwellings hereby permitted without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority. **END OF SCHEDULE**