Appeal 6000027

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s appeal statement included new material evidence in the form of shadow maps. The Council was provided with an opportunity to comment and I have taken the comments received into account. I have had regard to the shadow maps in my decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host building; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 40), with particular regard to sunlight and outlook.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 42), a modestly-sized 2-storey mid-terrace dwelling. The terrace contains dwellings of a broadly similar architectural style and design, with elongated gardens to the rear. These rear gardens lie adjacent to [name], which is a recreation ground lined with tall trees, some of which run along the rear of the site.

The proposed development would infill the existing gap between the outrigger at No 42 and the boundary fence with No 40, and would extend No 42 by approximately 2 metres to the rear. At its widest point it would span the full width of No 42. It would have a maximum height of approximately 3.68 metres, meaning that its roof would rise up close to the upper-floor windows at No 42.

As such, although the proposed materials would blend well with No 42, due to its significant size and scale the proposed extension would overwhelm the remainder of this modestly-sized mid-terrace dwelling. It would thereby undermine its existing legible and coherent architectural proportions, which are in-keeping with the similarly-designed dwellings on the terrace of which it forms a part. The proposed brick wall to replace the existing fence would constitute a minor change on site, which would not off-set the adverse impacts identified.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building. It would conflict with part a of Policy 6 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties will be required to ensure that the scale and form should respect or complement those of the host dwelling, and with part a of Policy 37 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, developments will be expected to be imaginative and attractive to look at, of a good architectural quality.

The submitted shadow maps are of limited assistance given that the methodology used in their generation has not been fully explained, and that the effect of the proposed development itself appears not to have been factored into the calculations.

The flank windows at No 40 are obscure-glazed. Taking account of the fact that the outrigger at No 42 currently reduces the amount of sunlight received to those windows at certain parts of the day, and that the room that those flank windows serve receives light from patio doors which face the rear garden at No 40, the proposed development would not be likely to worsen the existing situation with regards to the level of sunlight received to that room. Similarly, considering the presence of the outrigger at No 42 and the numerous tall trees beyond the rear of the site, the proposed extension would not result in unacceptable levels of overshadowing with respect to the ground-floor windows at No 40 which lie immediately adjacent to the boundary with No 42.

The proposed development would create a mass of built form of approximately 6.9 metres in depth, at a height of approximately 2.72 metres along the shared boundary with No 40. I observed that the existing fence on site sits lower than the upper-most ground-floor windows at No 40 which lie immediately adjacent to the boundary with No 42. The proposed extension would accordingly be appreciably taller than the existing fence on site. It would enclose the side of the area to the rear of No 40 which comprises a walkway which leads to the rear garden area at No 40.

Due to the height and depth of the proposed extension, the occupiers of No 40 would suffer from an undue sense of enclosure when using that walkway. This would undermine the pleasantness of the use of the garden area as a whole. Harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 40 would thereby result.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 40, with particular regard to outlook. It would conflict with part e of Policy 37 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, developments will be expected to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

The lack of objections from neighbours is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

I have had regard to the examples of planning permissions referred to, including those at [address], [address], and [address]. The full text of the [name] have not been provided for these examples, nor have the relevant plans. Hence, their particular site-specific circumstances and the extent to which these examples are comparable with the proposed development is unclear. As it has not been demonstrated that these examples are directly comparable with the proposed development, these examples do not change my findings on the main issues above.

I note the inconsistency of reasoning between Council’s Officer’s Report and the Council's decision notice in relation to the design of the proposed extension, but this appeal decision constitutes a fresh and impartial assessment of the proposed development. The proposed development would augment and modernise No 42 and the site, to the benefit of its current and future occupiers, including via the introduction of a proposed brick wall to replace the existing fence, which could potentially provide enhanced security on site. Nevertheless, as these would mainly entail private benefits, these factors collectively merit little weight in favour of the proposed development. None of these matters alter or overcome my findings on the main issues above.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.