Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed1 October 20243340223

2-4 Ringers Road and 5 Ethelbert Road, Bromley, BR1 1HT

demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising residential units, ancillary residents' facilities (including co-working space) and commercial floor space (Use Class E) across two blocks, along with associated hard and soft landscaping, amenity spaces, cycle and refuse storage (Revised scheme incorporating a second stair into Block A and Block B, internal layout and elevational changes, and changes to the on street parking bays and footpath along Ringers Road and Ethelbert Road)

Authority
London Borough of Bromley
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Major dwellings
Inspector
Rollings G

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area
  • The effect of the proposed development on the historic environment
  • The effect of the proposed development on the conditions of surrounding occupiers, with reference to outlook, daylight and sunlight, and privacy
  • Whether the proposed development would provide appropriate living conditions for its future occupiers, with reference to outlook, privacy, play space provision, and inclusive design
  • The effect of the proposed development on the local housing supply, with reference to the Council's housing land supply position and the provision of family accommodation and affordable housing

What decided it

The severe harm to the living conditions of surrounding occupiers, combined with harm to character and appearance, significantly and demonstrably outweighed the housing and other benefits under the tilted balance.

The substantial benefits of housing delivery, affordable housing and other obligations were significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the substantial harm to surrounding occupiers' living conditions and significant harm to character and appearance, so the tilted balance favoured refusal.

Framework references: 11

Plan policies cited: Local Plan Policy 37, Local Plan Policy 42, Local Plan Policy 47, Local Plan Policy 48, Site Allocation 10, London Plan Policy D1, London Plan Policy D3, London Plan Policy D4, London Plan Policy D9, Local Plan Policy 41, Local Plan Policy 4, London Plan Policy D6, London Plan Policy D5, London Plan Policy D7, London Plan Policy S4, Local Plan Policy 1, Local Plan Policy 2, London Plan Policy H4, London Plan Policy H5, London Plan Policy H10

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.