Appeal 6006105

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. • The quality of living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to light to the bedroom and the quality of the outdoor space. • The effect of the proposed development on biodiversity with particular regard to [name] (BNG).

This side of [address] is characterised by uniform rows of short terraces of two storey houses with a distinct set back from the road. Elsewhere on the road there are larger three storey blocks which also incorporate a clear set back and regular layout. There are some examples of planting, fences, extensions and outbuildings to corner plots. However, generally their modest scale and secondary use appear subservient to the host properties. As such, the set back main building line and open layout described above is prevalent and this pattern of development is an obvious and important characteristic of this area.

The appeal site is on a corner of [address]. It appears to have been subdivided from the rear garden of [address] and is open land, enclosed by a fence. [address] is part of a two storey terraced group facing east, with a front garden and hardstanding providing a regular set back from [address] to the front and side. [address] faces north as part of another two storey terrace and its front elevation broadly aligns with the side of no. 31, continuing the regular set back and distinctive building line. These properties and the open space around them, including the appeal site, make a prominent and positive contribution to the important regular pattern of development.

The appellant has drawn attention to other properties in the surrounding area. These include [address] (LPA ref 18/0271/FUL) which is a single storey structure on a corner plot. However, the planning permission is for an extension to no. 1, not a separate dwelling, and it is separated from the road by space for substantial planting. Moreover, such an arrangement is uncommon in the vicinity and not part of the predominant pattern of development. Also, there are outbuildings at [address], [address] and [address], and garages at [address] (although LPA ref 04/00407/FUL refers to a single story front extension) and [address] (although LPA ref 03/002332/FUL refers to a single storey rear extension). I have taken these into account, but generally these are modest outbuildings not separate dwellings which consequently maintain the prevailing pattern of development for the reasons set out above. I am also directed to [address] where it appears that some terraces have been extended into corner plots. as well as a Bungalow at Garage block adjacent to [address] (LPA ref 13/00128/FUL). However, these are located some distance from the appeal site and do not form its immediate context. Nor is there evidence that the circumstances and developments are comparable.

As such, overall, the overriding characteristics of the appeal site includes uniform two storey terraces with an evident and distinctive set back from the road and a clear regular layout.

The appeal scheme is for a single storey dwelling with a flat, green roof to the open plot. It would be around 0.5m from the edge of the road to its northern elevation, with the front elevation set behind the row at [address].

The dwelling would protrude forward of the houses to the northern side of [address] and would visibly disrupt the building line in this location. It would also be staggered back from the eastern part of [address] evidently jarring with the regular pattern of development on this side. It would be a long and narrow, detached, single storey building which would not reflect the characteristics of the surrounding built form and this would further emphasise its inharmonious appearance. The flat roof would reduce its visibility from the street. Nevertheless, the location adjacent to the road, and the proposed fenestration and independent access clearly evidence that it would be a separate dwelling and it would be highly visible.

Therefore, the proposed development would harmfully and prominently erode the important, regular pattern of development in the area. Consequently, it would not respond well to the site specific circumstances and there would be serious harm with regard to the creation of high quality places, which is fundamental to what the planning process should achieve.

The appellant states that an outbuilding could be constructed under permitted development. However, the site plan does not indicate that the land is within the curtilage of any dwellinghouse. As such, based on the submitted evidence, there is not a real prospect that these works would take place under permitted development and I afford limited weight to this matter. Therefore this does not alter my conclusions.

Consequently, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and Policies SP2 and DMD1 of the LBBD Local Plan (2024) (LBBDLP). Together these set criteria to achieve and deliver high quality design, including relating to local character.

The only bedroom would be served by a single high level window. Although it would not be close to other buildings it would face north and is small relative to the size and layout of the room. Its high level has benefits for privacy and security but would not provide outlook to this room.

In the absence of detailed daylight and sunlight information, given the orientation, size of the window and the layout proposed I am not satisfied that this main room would receive sufficient light. Nor is there substantive evidence that a larger window would either provide adequate light or be acceptable to character and appearance. There are no objections to the light to the living/kitchen/diner, however the bedroom is also a main room to the proposed property and should achieve suitable levels of light.

The only garden space is located to the front of the property. The plans show that it would be enclosed by a low level wall to [address] with planting and openings for pedestrian access and to the car parking space. Therefore, there would be direct views into the space from passersby in very close proximity. As such it would be unacceptably overlooked and would not provide suitably private garden space for future occupiers.

There is public open space nearby. However, private garden areas provide a different function. Although there are other properties in the area that do not have private space, that does not persuade me that a new dwelling should not have access to high quality outdoor space for occupiers.

Together the inadequate light and garden space results in serious harm to future living conditions. There is no objection with regard to the overall size of the unit and as such I do not find conflict with the [name] (2015), nor other aspects of living conditions for future occupiers. However, these are neutral matters which do not outweigh the harm identified above.

Therefore, the proposed development would provide an unacceptable quality of living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to light to the bedroom and the quality of the outdoor space. As such, in this regard, it would be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP and Policy DMD1 of the LBBDLP. Together these require high quality design and housing including with regard to the provision of sufficient daylight and sunlight, privacy and usable private outside space.

There is a mandatory requirement for certain development to provide BNG under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). BNG can be delivered through on site, off site measures or biodiversity credits, and can be secured as a pre commencement condition. The appellant indicates that they would provide off site credits, and BNG information has been provided with the application. However, the Council states that it contains inconsistencies. Nevertheless, such matters would be resolved through the discharge of the condition as any planning permission could not commence until a biodiversity gain plan has been approved by the Council, and this should include the pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat. Therefore, the standard condition could be successfully discharged and would prevent development if it could not be achieved. As such, it would be inappropriate to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the BNG objective would not be met.

Therefore, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on biodiversity with particular regard to BNG and would not conflict with schedule 7A of the TCPA as set out above.

The appeal site is subject to fly tipping and anti social behaviours. The proposed building would occupy the area in which these unsafe and unsightly practices occur. However, there is an absence of detail of alternative measures to prevent such behaviour, as such I am not satisfied that the appeal scheme is the only or least harmful way to achieve this outcome. Therefore, this attracts modest weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

The proposed development would provide a single new home on a small infill site in a residential area. The appellant states that the property would use recycled materials, have a green roof and high energy efficiency, although I am not provided with evidence that the development would exceed current requirements. It would also provide 10% BNG albeit, away from the appeal site. Overall, considering all the above and the scale of the development, the appeal scheme would provide modest benefits.

The latest [name] results indicate that the delivery of housing was substantially below the housing requirement over the previous three years. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (Framework) is engaged. It requires that planning permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, when assessed against the policies within the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies.

The scheme provides one house in an accessible location along with the associated social and economic benefits of such provision in an area where there is a shortfall in the delivery of housing. Overall, and taking into account the other matters above, the development results in important but modest benefits.

On the other hand, the development is harmful to character and appearance and would provide poor quality living conditions for future occupiers. It does not secure a well designed place with a high standard of amenity for future users which maintains the area’s prevailing character. As such it would not make an effective use of land in this regard. For the reasons set out above, the harm is serious.

As such, these serious adverse effects significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits set out above when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole and having particular regard to key policies. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

The material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.