Appeal 6000169

So far as they are relevant to this appeal, policies 49 of the Local Plan 1 and G2 of the London Plan2 are broadly consistent with those parts of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that relate to the Green Belt.

Local Plan policy 51 prescribes that extensions or alterations to dwellings in the Green Belt will only be permitted where certain criteria are met. The house has previously been extended, and the appeal scheme would further enlarge it. I do not doubt that in combination with the previous extensions, the development would result in a greater than 10% net increase in the floor area of the original dwelling3. As such, the scheme would not accord with at least 1 criterion of Local Plan policy

However, this policy does not allow for consideration of circumstances where the exception at Framework paragraph 154. g) may apply.

As there is an existing house on the appeal site, the land upon which it has been constructed constitutes previously developed land. The development would increase the massing of the dwelling from that which existed before the recent fire, and by introducing above-ground level development where there previously was none, it would lead to a spatial and visual reduction in the openness of the Green Belt. Nevertheless, the overall height of the building would not be increased, and its footprint would not be enlarged from that which existed before the fire. Consequently, the harm that would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt would be less than substantial. That being the case, and even if the development would not conform with the exception at paragraph 154. c) of the Framework, it would meet the exception at paragraph 154. g).

For these reasons, the appeal scheme would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it would accord with policies 49 of the Local Plan and G2 of the London Plan. Although the scheme would conflict with Local 1 1 London Borough of Bromley – Local Development Framework – Local Plan – January 2019 2 Mayor of London – The London Plan – The Spatial Strategy for [name] – March 2021 3 As it existed on 1 July 1948, or if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally Plan policy 51, this policy is inconsistent with the more recent Framework, and limited weight is given to it in determining this appeal.

The house on the appeal site (Flintlock) is one of a small number of neighbouring dwellings that address [site address] (the Lane). Trees, shrubs, and mature and thick hedgerows, as well as sizable front gardens/driveways separate these dwellings from the Lane. Consequently, when viewed from the Lane, these dwellings are generally seen either in isolation or in the context of the buildings they are immediately adjacent to. Notwithstanding this, these dwellings are of a variety of scales, heights, and designs, and, despite similarities in their alignment, there is very little commonality in their appearance.

Previous enlargements and alterations have changed the appearance and scale of Flintlock. As a result, the original character of the dwelling can no longer be clearly understood. Although the development would lead to further changes to its appearance, when viewed from the Lane, the balance of the house would be improved.

The enlargement of Flintlock would further increase the disparity in scale between it and the smaller neighbouring house at [name]. However, the materials used would match those found in the host dwelling; there would be no increase in its overall height; and the gap between these neighbouring dwellings would remain the same. As such, and due to the variety in the scale of buildings in the area, the development would not be unduly dominant or incongruous in relation to [name] or other nearby buildings.

Consequently, the development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and it would accord with the related policies cited in the decision notice.

To prevent a harmful loss of privacy for the occupiers of [name], it is necessary to impose a condition preventing the northeast-facing window of bedroom 4 from being clear glazed and opening below a certain height.

The size of the part of Flintlock that would be closest to [name] would be increased. Nevertheless, because of the fairly modest scale of this part of the development and its position in relation to [name], any associated reduction in light to the appeal site facing windows in this neighbouring dwelling would be small and limited to a short period of the day.

The proposal complies with those development plan policies that are most relevant to it, and nothing indicates a decision other than in accordance with these policies.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 24/1693/04 and 24/1693/02. Reason: Certainty

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Reason: Protect character and appearance of area

Before the first use of the development hereby permitted, the first-floor bedroom window on the northeast-facing elevation of the dwelling, shall be fitted with obscure glazing, and no part of that window which is less than 1.7m above the floor level of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Thereafter this window shall remain obscurely glazed, and non-opening for the first 1.7m above the floor level of the room it serves. Reason: Protect living conditions of occupiers of [name].