Appeal 6000090

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 44 [site address] , with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ), a detached 2-storey dwelling with a front garage attached via an interior passageway, located at the rounded end of a residential cul-de-sac. Similarly to other nearby dwellings, No [site address] has a legible and coherent design. The gap above the garage, to the side of No [site address] , brings an element of visual relief from the mass of built form in the area. Such gaps are common along the cul-de-sac, and contribute to the spaciousness of the area.

The proposed development would demolish the existing garage, and would introduce a part single / part 2-storey side extension and a 2-storey front extension. The front extension would project significantly past the principal elevation of No [site address] . With a substantial width in comparison with No [site address] as existing, and a prominent double-gable feature, the front extension would constitute a bulky addition. Moreover, the roof of the extension would not be set-down from the main roof at No [site address] . This lack of subservience with the remainder of No [site address] would emphasise the substantial scale of the proposed works. Overall, although the materials and style of the proposed development would match the existing dwelling, the proposed development would overwhelm the currently-legible form and proportions of No [site address] .

Furthermore, the proposed side extension would be built up to the side boundary of the plot, in conflict with part a of Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted

(Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, when considering applications for new residential development, including extensions, the Council will normally require for a proposal of 2 or more storeys in height, a minimum 1 metre space from the side boundary of the site should be retained for the full height and length of the building. This would result in No [site address] appearing cramped within its plot, which would not be sympathetic to the character of the area. The loss of the gap referred to above would also erode a measure of the spaciousness of the area, to the detriment of its character.

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 Policy 8 of the Local Plan, summarised above, and with parts a and b of Policy 6 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties should ensure that 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 space or gaps between buildings should be respected or maintained where these contribute to the character of the area.

The proposed development would conflict with parts a and b 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 and should complement the scale, proportion, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas, and positively contribute to the existing street scene. It would conflict with part D 1) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, 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.

44 [site address] (No 44) benefits from a conservatory to its rear. A side passageway between the conservatory and the site, which is bounded by the side wall of No [site address] ’s garage, provides access to the rear patio and garden at No 44.

The 2-storey element of the proposed side extension would extend past the rear of the conservatory. Due to its depth and height, and its close proximity to the side passageway, the 2-storey element would appear as an overbearing feature for users of the passageway. As such, it would make that space much less pleasant to use. This would likely undermine the enjoyment of the garden area as a whole. The proposed extension, sited so close to the conservatory, would also increase the sense of enclosure within it, thereby reducing its attractiveness as a place of relaxation / rest.

Mention has been made of guidelines relating to distances to neighbouring properties. However, it has not been made clear what guidelines are being referred to, and as no copy of any guidelines have been provided I am unable to assess the proposed development against these. This is not a matter which alters my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 44, 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, and 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.

The conduct of the Council during the processing of the planning application is not a matter that I can assess in the context of a planning appeal. The lack of objections from neighbouring residents and any interested parties is a neutral matter, as there could be any number of reasons why these parties did not submit representations at application stage.

The proposed development would enhance the living accommodation available at No [site address] . However, this would mainly entail a private benefit. The proposed development would be partly built on land occupied by the existing garage, but the scale of the benefits to the local area in land use terms would not be significant. These matters merit little weight in support of the proposed development. They do not overcome the combined harm identified on the main issues above.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

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.