# Timberdown, adjacent 1 Jackson Road, Bromley

- **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Sabu
- **Authority:** Bromley (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010191
- **Application reference:** 25/03925/FPA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of outbuildings and erection of 5 houses (semi-detached pair and terrace of 3) with parking and access
- **Homes:** 5
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 1.93
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), P3(2)(b), DP3(2)(a)
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 3, 4, 37, Urban Design Guide SPD 2023
- **Main issues:** outlook and light, character and appearance, noise
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, fallback, drafting-slip, living-conditions-decisive

## Summary
Five houses on a backland site in Bromley, where supply is 1.93 years. The appeal was dismissed on outlook harm to a single neighbouring garden, even though housing got substantial weight under the S4 within-settlement presumption. The Council had already approved a 4-house scheme on the site that placed the rear building further from the boundary.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Parties were consulted on the new Framework (DL ¶2).
- **Outlook, P3: FAIL.** "the proposed terrace would appear unacceptably oppressive from the rear windows and rear garden of No 35" (DL ¶5). BRE daylight and sunlight to windows passed. The loss of garden sun was "noticeable" but "not unacceptable" (DL ¶7).
- **Character, DP3: PASS.** In a varied area the scheme "would not harm the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶16).
- **Noise: PASS** (DL ¶¶17–21).

## Planning balance
S4(1) is quoted correctly: "should be approved unless the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶22). HO7 housing benefit is quoted as substantial weight, given 1.93 years (DL ¶¶23–24). The outlook harm got significant weight, and the Inspector added that the scheme "would not support the principle of liveability in the terms of the Framework" (DL ¶25). The conclusion then drops the qualifier: "the benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶26). The appeal was decided s38(6)-style, on conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶29).

## What made the difference
Harm to one neighbour's outlook, from a flank wall spanning more than the full width of a modest garden. That harm was given significant weight, and it beat substantial-weight housing benefit at 1.93 years' supply. The approved 4-house fallback, which kept the rear building back from that boundary, showed a less harmful layout was achievable.

## Transferable points
- Inspectors will count amenity harm to a single neighbour as an S4 "adverse effect" capable of outweighing substantial-weight housing benefit, even with supply below 2 years (DL ¶¶24–26).
- DP3(2)(a) "liveability" is being deployed to cover harm to *existing* neighbours, not just future occupiers (DL ¶25).
- Watch for the S4 "substantially" qualifier being dropped at the point of conclusion (DL ¶26 vs ¶22).

## Policy findings
- **S4(1): fail.** within settlement; letter concludes benefits "would be outweighed by the adverse effects" — omits "substantially" (DL 22, 26)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 5 dwellings with 1.93-year supply (DL 23-24)
- **P3(2)(b): fail (significant weight).** 2-storey flank wall of terrace close to modest garden of 35 Ribston Close — oppressive outlook; BRE light passed (DL 5-9, 25)
- **DP3(2)(a): fail.** oppressive effect means scheme "would not support the principle of liveability" (DL 25)
- **DP3: pass.** varied backland context; no character harm (DL 10-16)

## Key facts
- Council granted a 4-dwelling scheme on the site during the appeal (26/02197/FPA); given significant weight as a realistic fallback (DL 3)
- Council supply 1.93 years
- Garden of No 35 with 2+ hours sun on 21 March cut from about 57% to 45%, found acceptable (DL 7)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9af6da6a-500a-450d-8c4e-1e5d18acca66
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010191

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010191.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.