Appeal 6000064

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, subject to limitations and conditions. The Council refused to grant prior approval under paragraph A.4(7) of Class A, which provides that where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. This has been reflected in the main issue, below.

The Council have referred to development plan policies. Prior approval appeals are not determined on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). I have taken the development plan policies into account only insofar as they are relevant to the prior approval matter under consideration.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 54), with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling, [site address] (No 52), which has previously been extended. Following the demolition of an existing rear extension at No 52, the proposed new rear extension would extend for some distance past the ground floor rear extension of No 54, which contains a bank of windows facing a patio.

With a total height of approximately 3.5 metres, the proposed extension would appear as an imposing feature from the patio, which is used in part for sitting out. More importantly, whilst outlook down the long rear garden of No 54 would be unimpeded, the proposed extension would nevertheless appear as a dominating and obtrusive structure when seen through the rear windows serving the living room, due to its proposed siting on the common boundary, virtually directly adjacent to these windows. This would create an increased sense of enclosure and an overbearing impact for the users of that living area.

The combination of the above-mentioned adverse impacts would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 54, contrary to the guidance given in paragraph 4.17 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) which refers to a proposed development’s relationship to neighbours in the context of achieving good design. The proposed development would restrict the view from the patio area at No 52 towards the patio area at No 54, thereby improving privacy, but not to an extent which would adequately off-set the adverse impact to outlook identified above.

At paragraph 12 of appeal decision [name]/G5180/D/24/3345488, the Inspector did not raise concerns with respect to the footprint of that proposed development. However, this assessment was made with respect to matters of character and appearance, rather than living conditions. The Inspector’s observations in this regard therefore do not change my findings.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 54, with particular regard to outlook. Whilst not determinative, I have had regard to Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019). To the extent that they are relevant considerations within the terms of the GPDO, the proposed development would conflict with their aims that, amongst other things, developments will be expected to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

Reference has been made to the proposed extension being used by wheelchair users. However, the provisions of the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 (as amended) are not applicable, as the GPDO offers no discretion where conflict is found with its requirements. For the same reason, the other purported benefits of the proposed development (including its support for physical and mental health and its environmental impact), are not capable of changing my findings on the main issue above.

For the reasons given above, having considered all matters raised, I conclude that prior approval should not be granted and that the appeal should be dismissed.