Appeal 6000222

The appeal is dismissed.

The 3rd reason for refusal in the Council’s decision notice refers to the effect of a proposed 2-storey rear extension, whereas a single-storey rear extension is proposed. The reason for refusal refers to a ‘forward projection’, and the reasoning pertaining to this reason for refusal in the Council’s Officer’s Report relates to the effect of the proposed 2-storey side extension. Considering this in conjunction with the submitted plans, it is clear that the Council’s concern relates to the proposed 2- storey side extension. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

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 [address] (No 52), with particular regard to outlook and sunlight.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 54), a 2-storey detached dwelling situated within the Marlings Park Estate Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC), which predominantly consists of large detached dwellings. As described in the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan), the ASRC includes a majority of 2-storey detached properties set within plots regularly laid out onto long roads, and most houses are of a good quality [name] architectural or Arts and Craft design which gives pride of place to English vernacular features. Additionally, I observed that a variety of architectural styles and fenestration details exist within the ASRC as a whole.

The description in the Local Plan also mentions that trees to the rear and in gaps between properties are visible from the street, and in this regard I observed that, when standing on the footway, tall trees are visible to the rear of No 54.

No 54 is located near to a passing place on [address], where the road widens. No 54 and nearby dwellings on the site’s side of the road are stepped around this passing point. Specifically, No 54 is sat behind [address] (No

and is slightly in front of No 52. The front elevation (excluding the garage) of [address] (No 50) is broadly in line with the front elevation of No 52. [address] (No 48) is sat slightly forward of No 50. Space to the side of nearby dwellings at first floor level is common, which contributes to the sense of spaciousness evident in the area.

The proposed 2-storey front extension would span the full width of No 54’s front elevation, and would project beyond No 54’s existing ground floor front elevation by several metres. No 54 would also be extended to the side by a large margin. The proposed changes would mean that the broadly symmetrical pattern of development which exists between Nos 54 and 56 to the west of No 52, and Nos 50 and 48 to the east of No 52, would be severely compromised.

Moreover, whilst the proposed 2-storey front extension would not project beyond the front elevation of No 56, the resulting greatly increased scale and bulk of No 54, with much of this additional bulk being visible beyond the front elevation of No 52, would mean that No 54 as extended would appear overly-dominant in the street scene. Whilst crown roofs are present on dwellings in the wider area, they are not commonly found. Indeed, the description of the ASRC in the Local Plan refers specifically to the presence of multilevel roofs. The increase in the ridge height of No 54, and the incorporation of a wide crown roof on a singular level, would increase the dominance of No [address] scene still further, even taking account of the fact that the flat part of the roof would be concealed from view.

As such, No 54 as extended would not blend harmoniously with the group of dwellings referred to above which are sited around the passing point, as whilst these dwellings differ in their architectural style, they nonetheless exhibit a restrained scale due to the notable set-backs incorporated within their principal elevations. [address] and [address], both of which I observed on my site visit, are less restrained in this respect, but as they constitute the exception rather than the rule in the street scene in this regard, these examples do not change my findings. The incongruity of No [address] scene would be exacerbated by the stone cladding proposed for the ground floor front elevation, which would not blend well with the more common use of white render and brick in the area.

The appellant has calculated that the average separation distance between the flank elevations of properties fronting [address], between [address] and [address], is 1.7 metres. However, I observed that many dwellings along [address] contain large gaps at first floor level above integrated garages / single-storey side projections, and it is unclear whether the measurements referred to have been taken from ground floor or first floor level. Little weight has therefore been given to the average separation distance quoted.

The demolition of what remains of the existing garage/utility room and the extension of No 54 as proposed would provide a separation distance to No 52 of approximately 1.8 metres. Even so, sizeable gaps between dwellings at first floor level are especially noticeable in the vicinity of the site, and the proposed 2-storey side extension would erode much of this element of spaciousness which presently exists on site.

This would be contrary to part b of Policy 8 of the Local Plan which provides that 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. Additionally, the proposed 2-storey side extension would obscure much of the view of the trees to the rear of the site. In combination, these factors would serve to undermine the character of the ASRC.

[address] has retained a significant amount of space at first floor level above its garage. Similarly, [address] has retained space above its western-most ground floor projection. Hence, these developments have not unduly eroded the spaciousness of the area. As explained above, this would not be the case with the proposed development. Hence, whilst these examples form part of the local context, they are not directly comparable with the proposed development. Consequently, these examples do not change my findings on this main issue.

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 parts a and b of Policy 6 of the Local Plan, which provides that the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties will be required to 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 part b of Policy 8 of the Local Plan, summarised above.

The proposed development would conflict with part a 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 with Policy 44 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposed in areas designated as ASRCs will be required to respect, enhance and strengthen their special and distinctive qualities.

The proposed development would also conflict with part D 11) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that development proposals should respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character.

No [address] to the common boundary with the plot at No 54. I observed that the outlook from the main front windows at No 52 is partially obscured by the side wall of what remains of the garage at No 54 and by trees and hedges within No 52’s front driveway. The proposed 2-storey side extension would result in a tall and lengthy amount of built form in close proximity to those windows. This would unacceptably reduce the available outlook from those windows. As a consequence, it would make the affected living space at No 52 much less pleasant to use. Harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 52 would result.

Taking account of the orientation of No 52 and the path of the sun, the proposed 2- storey side extension situated so close to the main front windows at No 52 would likely result in an undue loss of sunlight received to those windows, particularly during the afternoon and early evenings. This would compound the harm caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 52, identified above.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 52, with particular regard to outlook and sunlight. 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, providing healthy environments and ensuring they are not harmed by inadequate sunlight or by overshadowing.

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 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 local residents is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

The proposed development would enhance the living accommodation available at No 54, including by way of providing additional space for contemporary living suitable for a family with children, and for working-from-home. The proposed development would also assist with the upkeep and repair of No 54. Even so, it has not been demonstrated that a less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims. Also, the benefits in this regard would be largely private in nature. Few details have been provided to accurately quantify the magnitude of the potential energy efficiency improvements referred to. In combination, these matters attract little weight in favour of the proposed development.

The benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the combined harm identified on the main issues above. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided 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.