Appeal 3344170

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers at [address], with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal dwelling (No 61) forms a semi-detached pair with [address] (No 63). Although different in design, both of these dwellings have rear projections of a similar maximum depth. There is a first-floor window at No 63 which is set back substantially from the deeper elements of these projections (the neighbouring set back window). Consequently, the flank wall of the deeper first-floor projection at No 63 and the sloped side of the appeal dwelling’s rear projecting roof sit either side and in close proximity to the neighbouring set back window.

As the rear projecting roof at No 61 is angled away from the boundary with No 63, this gives some relief from the built form to the sides of the neighbouring set back window. However, the proposal would increase the depth of the rear projecting roof at No 61 where it sits closest to the shared boundary with No 63. Furthermore, the proposed dormer facing No 63 would substantively span the full depth of this section of roof and would add bulk and vertical emphasis to it. Consequently, the mass, significant depth and close proximity of the extended roof and side dormer would unacceptably enclose the aspect to this side of the neighbouring set back window. In combination with the first-floor flank wall at No 63, this would be harmful to the quality of outlook for occupiers of No 63.

The enclosing impact of the proposal would also have the potential to have notable effects on the levels of daylight and sunlight received by the room served by the neighbouring set back window. There is no detailed evidence before me to demonstrate otherwise.

I have a duty to protect the living conditions of both current and any future residents of No 63. Therefore, despite there being no formal objections from the occupiers of any neighbouring properties, this does not mitigate the harm identified above.

The appellant suggests that they and the owners of No 63 would by preference extend out equally. However, I cannot be certain that this would occur. As such, I must consider the appeal on the basis of the current circumstances.

Furthermore, whilst there are large houses in the wider area, I have reached my findings based on the specific design of the proposal and the relationship with the immediate site-specific surroundings of the appeal dwelling.

Overall, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 63 with particular regard to outlook and light. As such, it would be contrary to Policy 37 (General Design of Development) of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (LP) which expects developments to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

The Council have mentioned conflict with Policy 6 ([name]) of the LP, however this primarily focuses on character and appearance and its relevance to the Council’s reason for refusal has not been clearly demonstrated. In any case, this does not override the conflict identified with Policy 37 of the LP.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.