Appeal 3291622

This appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook, light and sense of enclosure to [address].

This part of [address] is characterised by a row of terraced dwellings. Elevations are generally rendered and roofs are tiled although there is a mix of window styles. A small number of the properties in this group have porches and the majority have a pitched roof. The porches are not uniform in their design but generally respect the established appearance of the host dwellings. The traditional appearance of these properties and regular pattern of development are attractive features of this streetscene.

The proposed development would be clad in charred timber. This material is not found elsewhere in the road. The introduction of this inharmonious feature, particularly in prominent positions which are highly visible in the streetscene and from surrounding properties, would harmfully erode the established traditional characteristics of this property.

Different materials, such as plastic cladding, are used elsewhere in the vicinity. However, these are not so common as to form an overriding part of the character and appearance of the area. As such this does not alter my

Consequently, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, in this respect, it would be contrary to Policy 37 of the Local Development Framework Local Plan London Borough of Bromley Planning Division January 2019 (Local Plan) which requires that development should complement the materials of adjacent buildings and areas, amongst other things.

There is a ground floor window to the rear elevation at no. 21 which is the only window to the dining room. The main outlook from this room is along the narrow side return, and the existing close boarded boundary fence limits any peripheral aspect. This outlook would remain with the proposed rear extension in place, albeit that the boundary would be higher. The kitchen window at no. 21 is to the side elevation of the single storey rear addition. This has its main aspect across the narrow side return towards the boundary fence. Whilst the proposed extension would be higher than the existing fence, the outlook would not significantly alter. For the same reasons the sense of enclosure would not be harmfully affected.

Considering this existing arrangement, as well as the fact that the proposed extension would be to the north of these windows, the proposed development is unlikely to result in a harmful loss of light to these windows.

Consequently, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook, light and sense of enclosure to [address]. As such, in this respect, the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy 37 of the Local Plan which requires that new development should respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including with particular regard to light, amongst other things.

A condition of permitted development for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is that the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. Given my findings above, I am therefore not satisfied that there is a real prospect that the extension for which permission is sought could be erected under permitted development.

The lack of harm with regard to living conditions is a neutral factor that, therefore, does not outweigh the harm to character and appearance identified above.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.