Appeal 6000039

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 48 and [address] (Nos 48 and 52), with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 50), a modestly-sized 2 bedroom semi-detached dwelling situated in a residential area. No 50 benefits from a basement, a patio, and a large L-shaped rear garden area.

No 50 is a chalet-style dwelling. Nos 50 and 48 (to which No 50 is adjoined) appear to have retained many of their original design features, which include an unimposing scale, side cat-slide roofs, porthole and bay windows, and recessed side entrance doors. These core design features are also present on many other dwellings along [address], despite the fact that some dwellings in the vicinity have been extended at first-floor level. These features contribute towards the attractive and coherent architectural identity of the local area.

A generous amount of space exists between the side elevation of No 50 and the side boundary of the site, which separates the plot from the neighbouring plot at No 52. Lesser distances between the side elevations of dwellings and the side boundaries of plots exist in the area, including (amongst others) to the sides of 21 and [address], 189, 191, 201, and [address], and [address] (No 49) (an extension to No 49 was under construction at the time of my site visit). Nevertheless, I observed that such lesser distances are the exception rather than the rule in the area and especially along [address]. Indeed, I observed that a similar level of spaciousness to that seen to the side of No 50 is a distinctive feature of the locality.

Although the footprint of No 50 would not be extended towards the footway, the proposed 2-storey side extension would substantially increase the width of No 50, leaving an approximately 1 metre gap between the side elevation of No 50 and the side boundary with No 52. This would disrupt the currently visually pleasing symmetry of the semi-detached pair which is an important component of the aesthetic of the area. Due to its size and scale, including the introduction of a large hipped roof, this element of the proposed development would overwhelm the modest proportions of the dwelling, thereby eroding much of its positive contribution to the appearance of the street scene and the character of the area.

The proposed demolition of the garage and the removal of the generous amount of space to the side of No 50 would undermine the generally consistent pattern of development in this respect, in conflict with part b of Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, when considering applications for new residential development, including extensions, the Council will normally require that where higher standards of separation already exist within residential areas, proposals will be expected to provide a more generous side space.

The proposed development would move the entrance door to the front of No 50, which despite being a feature of 17 to [address] (Nos 17 to 23), is not commonly seen along [address] as a whole. This would further highlight the incongruity of the proposed 2-storey side extension in its context.

The proposed part one and part 2-storey rear extension would transform No 50 into a tiered 4-storey dwelling when seen from the rear. These extensions would be significant in scale and out-of-proportion when compared with No 50 as existing. When seen from the rear gardens of nearby dwellings, these rear extensions would appear overly-dominant in their context. Due to the numerous windows of differing sizes proposed on every level, the rear elevation of No 50 would have cluttered appearance, in contrast to the rear elevations of 38 and [address] which have a more restrained appearance in this regard.

Nos 17 to 23 form a cohesive group with a particular architectural style which differs from that at No 50 and the dwellings immediately adjacent to No 50. As this group of dwellings has its own distinctive identity, the 2-storey side elevations exhibited on these dwellings provide limited support for the extensions proposed at No 50. The plan supplied relating to the approved 2-storey side extension at No 49 shows a roof form of lesser bulk, with its front door less prominently sited on its front elevation than that which is proposed. As these examples are not directly comparable with the proposed development, they do not change my findings above.

I acknowledge that the proposed development shares individual design features in common with the examples of the approved extensions referred to by the appellants. I have referred to some of these similarities above. The proposed development must however be considered in its totality. The examples cited do not appear to involve such a significant degree of expansion of a dwelling or the undermining of core design features to the extent proposed at No 50. Hence, none of these examples are directly comparable with the proposed development, taking account of the totality of the proposed works, and they do not change my findings above.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with part b of Policy 8 of the Local Plan referred to above, and with parts a and b of Policy 6 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, with regards to the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties, the scale, form and materials of construction should respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area and that the space or gaps between buildings should be respected or maintained where these contribute to the character of the area.

The proposed development would also conflict with parts a and b of Policy 37 of the Local Plan which requires that development proposals should be imaginative and attractive to look at, of a good architectural quality and should complement the scale, proportion, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas, and positively contribute to the existing street scene, and with part D 1) of Policy D3 of The London Plan (published 2021) which provides that development proposals should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions.

[name] 50 would be extended towards the side boundary with No 52, due to the remaining degree of separation between the side and rear elevations of No 50 as extended from the rear amenity area at No 52, the proposed development would not likely result in adverse impacts upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 52, with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

Currently, a degree of overlooking arises from the rear windows at No 50 towards the rear garden area at No 48. Even so, No 50 as extended would incorporate a considerable number of new windows on its rear elevation, including numerous full-height windows. The windows proposed at first-floor level and above would overlook the rear garden area at No 48, in close proximity to that area. This would increase the level of overlooking to an unacceptable level, causing an undue loss of privacy for the users of that area.

The proposed development would significantly increase the massing of No 50, with sizable extensions to the rear proposed at both ground and first-floor levels. The combination of the markedly increased scale and dominance of No [address] proximity to the patio of No 48 would result in No 50 as extended appearing overbearing and unduly dominant in views from that patio area. This would undermine the pleasantness of the use of that space, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of No 48.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 48, with particular regard to privacy and outlook. It would conflict with part a of Policy 6 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, with regards to the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties, the scale and form should be compatible with development in the surrounding area, and 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, providing healthy environments and ensuring they are not harmed by inadequate privacy.

The proposed development would also conflict with part D 7) of Policy D3 of The London Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity.

Policy 8 of the Local Plan has been referred to by the Council. However, as this policy relates to side space, it is not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned policies are more than sufficient for me to come to a view on this main issue.

The proposed development would modernise No 50, including by way of the addition of new family bedrooms. This would provide enhanced living accommodation for the current and future occupiers of No 50. Additionally, the ‘granny annex’ element would improve No 50 to better meet the needs of older and disabled persons.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out in the Equality Act 2010 (as amended), but the significant harm caused to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 48 would outweigh the benefits of the proposed development in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of age and/or disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. It would therefore be proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

Taking account of the significant adverse impacts identified above, none of the other considerations material to the proposed development indicate that this appeal decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the

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.