Appeal 3279551

The appeal is dismissed.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised in July

However, as the Framework’s policies that are most relevant to this appeal have not materially changed, no parties will have been prejudiced by my having regard to the latest version in reaching my decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure, and (ii) the character and appearance of the host property.

The proposed addition would be located directly alongside the boundary shared with the neighbouring property, [address] (No 37). There is an existing rear extension to the appeal property however this is a small feature along the boundary, the proposed extension would be higher and would extend further along the boundary with No 37. There is a ground floor window to No [address] to the shared boundary and the proposals would result in an increased bulk of development being located in close proximity to this window. This would have the effect of further curtailing the outlook from this window by introducing a new built form that rises to a height above that of the existing.

Furthermore, the proposals would result in development stretching further along the boundary and would result in a sense of any views being “tunnelled” between built features, unacceptably increasing the sense of enclosure experienced by the occupiers of No 37.

Therefore, I find that the proposal would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure. Thus, the scheme conflicts with policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (the Local Plan), insofar as it seeks to ensure that development respects the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

The proposed extension would rise to two-storeys in height, with a flat roof over, with an attached single storey element under a pitched roof. While the addition would be larger than the existing extensions to the property, I observed that there was significant variety in the form and scale of additions that have been added to adjacent properties in the terrace.

Within this context, together with the location of the proposals to the rear elevation where there are generally no public views, the scheme would not be a disproportionate addition, nor would it appear as an incongruous feature on the host property or in the context of the wider terrace.

Accordingly, in this respect, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property. Thus, it would accord with policies 6 and 37 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek to ensure development complements the scale of adjacent buildings and that residential extensions respect or complement the host dwelling.

I acknowledge that the scheme would bring about improvements to the internal family space, with resultant benefits. However, this is not sufficient to overcome the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.