Appeal 6000223

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of Flats 1 and [address] and Nos 76 and [address] with regard to privacy, noise and disturbance; and the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the appeal building and the street scene.

The appeal building (No 78) is a large, two-storey detached building subdivided into several flats. [site address] is located within the roof and has rear facing windows serving the kitchen and living room. Next to the living room is a flat roof, part of which is proposed to be used as a balcony.

Flats 1 and 2 occupy the ground floor and have private gardens, whilst Nos 76 and 80 are large neighbouring dwellings with substantial rear gardens. From [site address] , views currently extend to the rear portions of these gardens, but not the more private areas near the dwellings such as patios and Flat 2’s conservatory. Whilst the proposed balcony would have an opaque balustrade around it and be set back slightly from the edge of the flat roof, the limited height of the balustrade and the proposed set back would mean the occupiers would still be able to see significantly more of the surrounding gardens resulting in a greater loss of privacy than currently exists.

While other properties in the vicinity, such as [address], have elevated windows and balconies which may overlook the affected properties, these are located a greater distance away than the proposed balcony. In contrast, the proximity and use of the balcony for socialising would intensify the perception of overlooking and associated loss of privacy. The impact would be particularly pronounced in the most private areas of the gardens. Therefore, the proposed development would result in a significant loss of privacy within the surrounding properties, and this would cause harm to the living conditions of the nearby occupiers. The limited height and set back of the balustrade would not overcome the above concerns.

The properties are located in a predominantly residential area where noise and disturbances from neighbouring occupiers would likely occur. The use of the balcony for socialising would introduce a new location for this to happen but given that it would be used in association with an existing property, where socialising could occur anyway, the proposal would not cause noise and disturbances that would significantly harm the neighbouring occupants’ living conditions above and beyond what could already occur.

External lights are not proposed around the balcony and light spill from [site address] would be consistent with typical residential use. For these reasons, the light generated by the proposal would not give rise to significant disruption to nearby occupiers.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, whilst the proposed development would not harm the surrounding occupiers with regard to noise and disturbances, the effect of the development upon the privacy of the surrounding occupiers would cause harm to their living conditions. Consequently, the development would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan. These policies expect development, amongst other matters, to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

Whilst Policy D6 of the London Plan does state that new housing developments should provide outdoor amenity space, the scheme under consideration does not pertain to new housing development. Policy D3 of the London Plan also expects developments to deliver appropriate privacy which, for the reasons given above, this proposal would not.

The appeal property is a mock Tudor-style detached dwelling, consistent in design and scale with the neighbouring properties. It features red brick at ground level, rendered upper floors, a red tiled roof with dormer windows, tall narrow glazing, exposed timber detailing and a prominent chimney which all contribute positively to the character and appearance of the building itself and the street scene.

The proposed balcony would be located at roof level to the rear of the property, an area generally screened from nearby roads due to the surrounding development pattern. It would feature an opaque glass balustrade extending modestly along the flank elevation, resulting in glimpsed views between No 78 and No 80. However, the balcony would span a substantial portion of the rear elevation, introducing a large area of uninterrupted glazing that would contrast poorly with the building’s traditional fenestration, particularly the tall narrow glazing. The opaque appearance of the balustrade would partially obscure the façade, making it appear more prominent and visually discordant. The prominence of the balustrade would harmfully detract from the perceived massing of the rear elevation.

Although not overly visible from nearby roads, the balcony would be seen from surrounding properties. The use of glazing would be a modern addition and while this can complement more traditionally designed buildings, the scale and design of the proposed balcony would not positively complement the mock Tudor design of the building. While balconies exist on other nearby properties, they are generally smaller and less visually intrusive.

Given its rear location, the proposal would not directly affect the most prominent architectural features visible from the street. Consequently, while it would detract from the character and appearance of the host building, the impact on the overall street scene would be limited.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, while the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the street scene, it would harm the character and appearance of the appeal building. Consequently, the development would not accord with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan insofar as they expect developments to be imaginative and attractive to look at, of a good architectural quality and should complement the scale, proportion, form and materials of adjacent buildings and areas.

Matters related to ownership and private interests such as the value of land and property have little to do with the individual merits of the proposed development.

The proposed development would provide outdoor space for the occupiers of [site address] which would offer a place to relax and socialise which can contribute towards improved physical and mental health. However, the proposal would harm both the living conditions of nearby occupiers and the character and appearance of the appeal property. This would lead to a conflict with local policies and thus the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not outweigh this conflict. Consequently, the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.