Appeal 6000076

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for two-storey side extension, first floor extension, and renovation works to the existing house at [site address] , Bromley [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/03442/FULL6, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan 12-Sep-2024, J24004-ZMA-V1-[name]-010-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-011-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-012- PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-013-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-020-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-021-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-022-PL, J24004- ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-023-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-030-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1- ZZ-DR-A-031-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-102-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-[name]-110-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-111-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-113- PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-120-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-121-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-122-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-123-PL, J24004- ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-130-PL, J24004-ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-131-PL, and J24004- ZMA-V1-ZZ-DR-A-132-PL.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the side (east) elevation windows have been fitted with obscured glazing and no part of the windows shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the windows are installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The Council used a revised description of development. There is nothing before me to show that this was agreed. The original description of development is sufficient to accurately describe the proposal. Accordingly, I have used this in my decision.

On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). Its content relative to the main issue of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary to give the parties opportunity to comment on the revisions.

The main issues are:

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area, and

Whether the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings.

The appeal dwelling stands at the end of a small cul-de-sac that is made up of five detached dwellings that were built at the same time. Although it appears they were all of a matching design, they have all been altered. Alterations include large extensions, particularly to the two other dwellings on the north side of the road that feature large areas of glazing, first floor balconies, and oversailing canopies to the front at ground floor level. These three already differ considerably in terms of their overall style and appearance. Common characteristics include the spacious layout of the cul-de-sac, the two storey form of the dwellings, their generously sized plots, and the way they make the most of the pleasant south facing views.

They are within the Chelsfield Park Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC). This is described as a mix of detached and suburban properties, ranging from original Homestead chalets and cottages to a majority of large contemporary five-to-six-bedroom family houses built in a variety of styles. Its distinct character results mostly from its spacious sylvan, landscaped and semi-rural setting combined with the wide variety in styles, sizes and designs of houses. [address] does not appear to be a typical example of the form of development the prevails within the ASRC, it does represent the area insofar as it comprises large dwellings that sit in large plots that utilise a variety of styles and designs.

The proposed extensions would be substantial and would significantly alter the appearance of the dwelling. The black render would be a bold addition, although it would have some similarities with the dark tile hanging of the dwelling opposite. Furthermore, it would serve to mark the original dwelling, so that it remains the principal part of the building, with extensions primarily focused on either side.

Contemporary flat forms would be introduced, and these would be appropriately expressed in metal cladding at the first floor level, reinforcing their crisp modern appearance. The end wall of bedroom 3 would take the form of a metal clad box, with a flat top that rises above the eaves height of the existing dwelling. This would be a prominent addition, but it would not extend forward of the existing dwelling at this point. Its impact on views along the road from the east would be significantly mitigated by the position of the neighbouring dwellings, which broadly align, and the grouping of mature vegetation at the front of the neighbour’s dwelling to the east. As a result, it would not be an obtrusive addition to the streetscene.

At ground floor level the dwelling would be extended forward, and this would include a deep canopy across the front. Again, these are bold additions. They would be easily viewed when the dwelling is approached from the east, however their form would be simple and elegant, and the overall concept of an oversailing ground floor canopy is already established by the two dwellings to the east. Furthermore, the vertical timber cladding would have a soft and natural finish that would develop a weathered patina over time and thereby lessen the impact of the development; and the full forward extension would be at the far end, which would make sense of the dwellings corner plot position.

Extending here would make the dwelling more prominent when looking down the road from the east. However, it would remain in a clearly offset position to one side of the road, and open views to the open countryside beyond would remain, thus avoiding harm to the setting of the Green Belt. In other respects, the expansive areas of glazing would not be out of place in the context of nearby dwellings with similar fenestration details.

My attention is drawn to previous Council decisions. Details of the application that was refused on 16 June 2000 are not before me, so I cannot compare the proposals. A substantial extension was refused at the appeal dwelling in 2007. Plans for this are before me. This differed considerably from the appeal proposal by including a prominent two storey forward facing extension. Whilst the appeal proposal would extend the dwelling to the front, this would be limited to the ground floor. The loose building line that is formed by the three dwellings would be adequately retained at first floor level. Furthermore, the appeal proposal is for extensions that would appear as clear additions to the original dwelling, with a broken massing that would not result in the bulky form previously proposed.

The Council refers to existing alterations to the building and suggests that they have not received permission. This is not a relevant factor as I have not found the proposal to be acceptable solely based on a comparison with the existing dwelling, but rather by a fuller consideration of the character and form of the nearby dwellings and its broader impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene.

In summary, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or the area, including that of the ASRC. It would accord with Policies 6, 37, 44 and 53 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (LP), which together seek to ensure that the scale, form and materials respect or complement those of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, that proposals are well designed, respect, enhance and strengthen the special and distinctive qualities of ASRCs and ensure that the adjacent Green Belt is not detrimentally affected.

The proposal would introduce window openings to the east elevation, where there are currently none. These are secondary windows and could be obscurely glazed and fixed shut to ensure that no overlooking could take place. A condition could secure details of this if the appeal is allowed.

The proposals would extend the dwelling towards the neighbour to the south. This would include a ground floor extension, and a first floor balcony that would extend beyond the existing first floor windows and existing terrace at the east end. The appeal dwelling is at a significantly higher level than the neighbour to the south, which has the potential to exacerbate its impact. However, the distance between the extended dwelling and the front of the opposite dwelling would be substantial. At this distance, bringing the building forward to the extent proposed would not meaningfully increase the ability to view the interior of this opposite dwelling.

The proposal would increase the potential to look over the areas of garden that serve this dwelling. However, these are already to the front of the dwelling, and prominently positioned at the end of the cul-de-sac. Although generously sized, this area is essentially a front garden that currently has a limited level of privacy, and I note that a large area of private and attractive garden exists to the south of this dwelling that would be unaffected by the proposal.

In summary, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings. It would accord with Policy 37 of the LP, which seeks to ensure that development proposals respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

I have considered the condition suggested by the Council in the context of the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition to specify the approved plans to give certainty, and a condition to ensure that the east facing windows are obscurely glazed and fixed shut to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.

A neighbour questions whether the parking provision would be sufficient. The dwelling is currently large, with five bedrooms. Although not shown on the plans, I could see at my visit that [address] on the driveway, and the existing garage would be retained. Additionally, ample parking is available on the road. I am therefore satisfied that this should not be a main issue of the appeal.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed.