Appeal 6008181

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect on: • The character and appearance of the local area; and, • The living conditions of residential occupiers.

The appeal site is located on the corner of [name] and [address] and is an open area to the side of [site address] . At the time of my site visit this was surrounded by a tall construction site hoarding related to the creation of flats within 1 and 2 [name] (No.1 and No.2).

The appeal proposal is for a single storey side extension to the shop on the ground floor of No.1 and the provision of an amenity space with bin and cycle store for the first floor flat above the shop (Flat 1A) that would be accessed via a gate from the street.

No.1 is a locally listed late early 20th Century building and is therefore considered to be a Non Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). Accordingly, I have considered the effect of the proposal on the significance of the NDHA in line with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework). The appeal site sits within the boundary of the Chislehurst Conservation Area (the CA). This is a large CA with differing character areas. The appeal site is within the southern part of the village on the common and sits on a prominent corner site at the end of the shopping parade. As such, the appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance as a heritage asset.

The CA is a heritage asset to which I have a statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. I must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The proposed side extension is of a subordinate scale and complimentary design to No.1, incorporating sympathetic features and details that reflect its architectural expression and period. As such, it does not result in any detriment to its character and appearance or significance as an NDHA.

The proposed side extension would require the redesign of the open area to the side of No.1 to accommodate an amenity space with bin and cycle storage associated with Flat 1A. Planning Permission1 has previously been granted for this space to be used for providing a larger amenity space with cycle and bin storage for Flat 1A as well as cycle and bin storage for Flats 2A and 2B, that are located at first and second floor levels above the shop at No.2. The proposal does not include cycle and bin storage provision for Flat 2A and Flat 2B.

The proposal would subdivide the open area with a fence to create a boundary between the demise of the extended shop and amenity space for Flat 1A. The proposal is that both of these would have street frontages defined by a unified tall hedge, with a gate provided off [address] for access to the occupiers of Flat 1A. Although there was such a hedge prior to recent construction works, this has been removed and the proposal would require new hedge planting. With the attachment of a suitable condition to require the planting of a mature hedge, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the CA and would preserve its significance as a heritage asset. Lack of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations in this instance.

The proposal would reduce the amenity space provided for Flat 1A from the previously approved2 approximately [address] Metres to [address] Metres. Although larger than the minimum standard recommended3 for a dwelling of this size, it would not be directly accessible from Flat [address], it would also sit directly adjacent to a busy street and bus stops at [name], resulting in disturbance and limited privacy. Due to its relatively limited scale, the proposed amenity space would also be dominated by the presence of the cycle store for 2 bikes and the bin store for 2 bins for Flat 1A, resulting in a significant effect on the amenity the space could provide. As such, I find that the living conditions of occupiers of Flat 1A would be detrimentally affected by the provision of a poor quality constrained amenity space.

As the appeal proposal does not include the previously approved cycle and bin storage for Flat 1A and Flat 2B, the appellant has suggested that the provision of these amenities could be made the subject of a suitably worded condition requiring provision to be made either at [site address] or within the demise of 1 Church 1 Planning Ref: 24/03008/FULL1 2 Planning Ref: 23/01449/FULL2 3 London Plan Guidance - [name] (June 2023) Row, a neighbouring property owned by the appellant. However, there is nothing before me to indicate that it would be possible to achieve this in an acceptable manner and therefore make an otherwise unacceptable development acceptable in this regard. Such a condition would not therefore accord with paragraph 56 of the Framework. The proposal does not therefore provide for the necessary amenity of bin and Cycle storage for occupiers of Flat 2A and Flat 2B, which would have a detrimental effect on their living conditions.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of occupiers of Flat 1A, Flat 2A and Flat 2b. this would be contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019). This, amongst other matters, seeks development that respects the amenity of future occupants, and that recycling and waste facilities are incorporated within the design layout.

The appeal is dismissed