Appeal 6005863

The appeal is dismissed.

For reasons of precision, I have taken the address used in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice. This accurately describes the appeal site and is also used in the appellant’s appeal statement.

I have taken the description of development used in the heading above from the application form. However, for reasons of precision, I have removed superfluous text relating to the address of the property.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on nearby protected trees; • the effect of the proposed development on biodiversity and ecology; • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to the provision of natural light and outlook; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with regard to privacy.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey terraced dwelling. Surrounding development includes a mix of terraced and semi-detached properties of a similar size and style. Residential plots in the surrounding area are typically long, narrow and rectangular with generously sized rear gardens. This creates a sense of spaciousness and contributes to the suburban character of the area. There is an existing single storey outbuilding and shed to the rear of the appeal site, and such structures are common features within the area. However, they generally appear as ancillary and secondary to the main dwellings.

The scheme would subdivide the existing plot, and the proposed dwelling would be positioned to the rear of the host property. It would be single storey and accessed via an accessway which runs along the rear of properties along [address].

The resultant plot sizes and gardens of both the host property and the proposed dwelling would be much smaller than most others within the area. In this regard, the layout of the proposed development would contrast with the surrounding pattern of development, which is characterised by long, narrow plots and rear gardens. Whilst the rear garden of the proposed dwelling may exceed the required size standards, for the reasons set out above, it would fail to reflect the surrounding pattern of development.

The siting of a dwelling to the rear of the host property would also be at odds with surrounding development. Although outbuildings and sheds are common features within the surrounding area, these are ancillary to the use of the main dwelling and inherently different to a separate dwelling sat within its own plot and served by its own access.

The proposed single storey dwelling would have a flat roof and be relatively small in scale, in comparison to the properties along [address]. Its scale, form and design would bear little to no resemblance to surrounding residential development. In this regard, it would also fail to relate well to surrounding development.

The proposed dwelling may not be readily visible from the street scene given its small scale and positioning to the rear of terraced properties. Nonetheless, this does not equate to a lack of harm. In any case, the dwelling would be served by its own access and have its own parking space. This, coupled with the proposed new boundary treatment and other domestic paraphernalia, would mean the property would clearly read as a separate dwelling, which would be particularly evident to the occupiers of properties along this side of [address].

To the rear of the site and along the accessway there is dense tree coverage. The trees are protected by a tree preservation order and strongly contribute to the verdant character and visual amenity of the area. Although the proposed dwelling would not be situated directly under the trees to the rear of the site, it would undoubtedly be located close to several large mature trees.

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) sets out how minor conflicts with root protection areas could be managed through measures such as hand excavation and protective barriers. The assessment sets out how canopy pruning would not be necessary and various other measures would be used to ensure tree health during construction.

I accept that, subject to the measures in the AIA being followed, it would be possible to construct the dwelling without harming the protected trees. However, over time the relationship between the dwelling and the trees could become problematic and uncertain. Given the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the trees, the canopies would cause some shading to the site. Indeed, this is recognised within the AIA. Additionally, there would be seasonal leaf litter and potentially sap dripping onto/close to the site, including its access. Future occupiers would also likely be apprehensive that significant damage to the property may occur if the trees were to become comprised in any way, for example, during a storm. As such, there is a tangible risk that the occupation of the proposed dwelling would result in future pressure for maintenance, pruning and potential felling of valuable trees which, if consented, would erode the character and visual amenity of the area.

I recognise that any works would be subject to Council approval. However, it may become increasingly difficult for the Council to resist such works, particularly if safety were to become an issue. Additionally, any risk would be significantly lower at present, given the lack of dwelling in the rear garden area.

Whilst soft landscaping is proposed, this would likely be relatively modest in size and as such would not reflect or replicate the effect of the existing protected trees. This therefore does not outweigh the potential harm as identified above.

To conclude on the main issue, the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would also likely lead to future pressure to prune or even remove the protected trees, which would detract from the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policies 3,4, 37 and 73 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (BLP) and Policies D3 and G7 of the London Plan (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that respects the character of an area and takes account of trees on the site and on adjoining land.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) sets out how a record search of NBN atlas found records of various species of bats within 2 kilometres of the site. Additionally, it sets out that the trees to the rear of the site include potential roosting features and could be used by bat species to travel through the corridor of trees on the bank of the railway line. The apple tree on the site, which would be removed, also includes potential roosting features. Nonetheless, it goes on to conclude that the proposed development would not result in disturbance to suitable roosting habitats and is unlikely to have a significant ecological impact.

However, the survey was carried out over two years ago, in February 2024, and the report itself is dated September 2024. It is therefore possible that site conditions may have changed over time and there is limited empirical evidence before me to demonstrate that such conditions have not changed in the interim. Indeed, the report itself advises that the results remain valid for 12 months (assuming site conditions have not changed). As such, in the absence of up-to-date survey information, I cannot rule out harm to protected species.

The PEA also sets out how the scheme would lead to habitat loss and outlines various mitigation measures such as bird and bat boxes which should be incorporated in the scheme. It goes on to state that bat boxes should be positioned 3-5 metres above ground level whilst a nest box should be 3 metres above ground level. However, the dwelling would be single storey. It is therefore unclear where such boxes would be placed on site and therefore whether the development would be capable of incorporating such mitigation measures. Whilst there are tall trees which may be able to accommodate the boxes, it is unclear as to whether these trees are within the appellant’s ownership and therefore whether this offers a feasible solution.

To conclude, for the reasons set out, the absence of up-to date-information means I cannot rule out harm to protected species. The application has also failed to demonstrate whether the development is capable of incorporating the recommended mitigation measures. It has therefore not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the scheme would not result in harm to biodiversity and ecology. It would be contrary to Policies 70 and 72 of the BLP and Policies G6 and G7 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these polices seek to avoid damage to and/or loss of wildlife features and avoid adverse impacts to protected species.

The proposed dwelling would comprise a kitchen/living/dining area to the rear and a bedroom and study to the front of the property. The living area would benefit from large glass sliding doors, a side window and a large rooflight and the study and bedroom would each benefit from a window on the front elevation.

In terms of natural light, the large glass sliding doors and relatively open rear garden would ensure the living area is provided with ample amounts of daylight. In addition, this would be further supplemented by the side window and large rooflight. Although this room would face north, given the size of the glass doors and the presence of a large rooflight, I am satisfied that it would receive acceptable levels of sunlight.

The dense tree coverage to the front of the proposed dwelling would reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight reaching the bedroom and study windows. Nonetheless, some natural light would still reach them through gaps in the tree coverage. Additionally, I accept that both the study and bedroom would likely only be used at certain times of the days. Future occupiers could utilise the living area, which would benefit from ample levels of natural light throughout the day. As such, I am satisfied that although the dense tree coverage would reduce the levels of natural light reaching the bedroom and study windows, this would not result in unacceptable harm.

In terms of outlook, the outlook from the living area would be into the open rear garden area. The tree coverage would dominate the outlook from the bedroom and study windows. Nonetheless, the trees would provide a sylvan backdrop and, in this regard, the outlook from these windows would be acceptable. Overall, the property would offer an acceptable standard of outlook for future occupiers.

To conclude on the main issue, the scheme would ensure acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to natural light and outlook. The scheme would be in accordance with Policy 4 of the BLP and Policy D6 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure acceptable living conditions for future occupiers.

As noted, the proposed dwelling would be single storey. Proposed high boundary fencing, separation distances of approximately 20 metres between the rear of the proposed dwelling and rear of the host property and the small scale of the proposed dwelling would ensure privacy for the occupiers of the host property.

There is a high boundary fence between the appeal site and [address] (No.112), which would be retained. There are also separation distances of approximately 20 metres between the rear of the proposed dwelling and the rear of No.112. The height of the fence, coupled with the separation distances and the scale of the proposed single storey dwelling, would ensure no unacceptable loss of privacy to the residents of No.112.

There is a lower wire fence to the rear of the appeal site, on the shared boundary with [address] (No.108). The appellant sets out that this would be replaced with a high fence, however the proposed plan indicates that it would remain as existing. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that if I were to approve the appeal, I could use a planning condition to ensure the submission of details of 1.8-metre-high boundary fencing. There are also similarly separation distances of approx. 20 metres between the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling and No.108. Given the above, I am satisfied that the scheme would be capable of ensuring the privacy of the residents of No.108.

Overall, for the reasons set out, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to privacy. It would be in accordance with Policy 37 of the BLP in this regard. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure that development respects the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The refusal reason also cites noncompliance with Policy 119 of the BLP. This relates to noise pollution, which is not referenced in the refusal reason. I therefore do not find this policy to be relevant to this main issue.

The Council’s appeal statement sets out that the schemes reliance on the purchase of off-site statutory credits to meet the 10% [name] requirement highlights the over intensification of the plot. Nonetheless, it sets out in its case officer reports that the purchase of such credits could be secured through a Section 106 agreement or planning condition requiring evidence of credit prior to commencement and delivery of on-site measures. It goes on to conclude that the application does not warrant refusal on the grounds of BNG. [name] have found harm in relation to other main issues, I have not considered this matter further.

The Council’s appeal statement also suggests that the scheme would introduce additional noise and comings and goings from the site, leading to loss of amenity to nearby residents. This is however not referenced in its refusal reason or the case officer report. [name] am dismissing the appeal, I have not considered this matter further.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a scheme at 172 Pickhurst Lane1, which was allowed at appeal. They contend that this scheme indicates that back land development is therefore appropriate within this area. However, there is relatively limited information regarding this scheme before me. In addition, it was for three dwellings and is some distance from the appeal site. I am therefore not satisfied that it is directly comparable to the scheme before me.

The site is not within a conservation area, and the host property is not listed. The scheme may meet the internal space standards, ensure an acceptable standard of living for future occupiers and provide car parking and cycle and refuse storage. It may also meet fire safety regulations and emergency services may be able to access the property. These are however considered to be neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

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 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 scheme would make a small but important contribution to the housing land supply. It would make effective use of small windfall site, in an area close to various shops and services, and introduce additional soft landscaping. The property would also be complaint with M4(2) building regulations. The appellant contends that such accessible homes are in particularly short supply across London and Bromley.

It is put forward that the property would be a family home; however, it only has one bedroom so it is unclear how it would accommodate a family. Nonetheless, I accept that the study may offer flexibility to also be used as a bedroom. The scheme would remove an existing outbuilding, which the appellant contends is poorly maintained. It would also promote sustainability through rainwater harvesting and there is potential for a green roof on top of the bicycle storage and the dwelling itself, however there are limited details regarding this before me. It may also improve drainage conditions at the site.

Overall, the small scale of the development means that I afford the provision of new housing, along with the other benefits listed above, moderate weight in favour of the proposed development.

Accordingly, I find that the adverse impacts arising from the development in terms its effect on the character and appearance of the area, including its potential effect on protected trees, and potential effect on biodiversity and ecology would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the moderate weight attributed to the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in these circumstances. 1 21/05711/FULL1

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.