Anne Williams and Peter Cruickshank successful in defending planning appeal after 2 week inquiry
October 1, 2024
The Planning Inspectorate have published their decision dismissing the appeal of a developer who had been refused permission for two tower blocks on the edge of Bromley Town Centre’s heritage area. Anne Williams and Peter Cruickshank were instructed by the successful respondent to the appeal, Bromley London Borough Council.
The Council had refused planning permission for the construction of two blocks comprising 94 apartments in Bromley Town Centre, deciding that the proposal offered an unsuitable mix of housing, that the siting, height, scale, massing and appearance of the development appeared to be over-intensive development within a confined site that it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, that it offered poor daylight and sunlight conditions with negative impacts on privacy and overbearing.
The inquiry took place over two weeks, from 16 to 26 July 2024. It was agreed by both parties to the appeal that the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, meaning that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied (the “tilted balance”). The inquiry heard evidence over two weeks on key topics including the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; the impact on the historic environment; the impact on the conditions of surrounding occupiers; whether the proposed development would provide appropriate living conditions for its future occupiers; and the effect of the proposed development on the local housing supply.
The inspector dismissed the developer’s appeal. He decided that “I find that the harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, such that the proposal does not represent sustainable development. As well as the policy conflicts that I have identified, the proposal does not comply with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations to indicate that I should determine the appeal otherwise than in accordance with the plan.”
