Appeal 6000256

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the appellants’ surname from the appeal form as I am advised by the appellants’ agent that this is the correct spelling.

Whilst the details of the previous appeal at the site are not before me, I understand from the submissions that the proposal before me in this appeal includes a reduced scale roof with a graduated stepped design, a hipped roof on the rear projection in place of a gable roof, alterations to the layout and fenestration of the basement and removal of a proposed dormer window on the rear elevation.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area; and • The living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with regards to outlook and privacy.

[address] has a strong architectural identity consisting, in the main, of evenly spaced pairs of semi-detached houses displaying a number of similar design features including a side catslide roof. Whilst some properties have been extended, altered, or built later, the separation between buildings, the rhythm and pattern of the houses, and the prevailing symmetry between pairs and neighbouring pairs of houses results in a coherent and pleasing street scene.

Notwithstanding that the neighbouring property at No 52 has been extended with a flat roof at first floor level in place of the catslide roof, the appeal property (No 50) forms a symmetrical pair with No 48 and contributes positively to the overall character of the street as a result.

In common with other properties on the east side of [address], the existing property and its rear patio area are elevated above the main area of garden. The basement and raised patio area would largely only be visible from within the garden of the appeal property. It would not be harmful to the overall character and appearance of the area. The proposed two storey extension projects to the side and rear of the property. The rear projection is similar to those seen on other properties in the road and incorporates a hipped roof which limits its overall height and bulk.

However, the proposed first floor extension to the side of the property would be a large addition which would overwhelm the property and not appear subservient. It would result in the property being noticeably at odds with its semi-detached neighbour. This would unbalance and disrupt the current symmetry of the semi-detached pair. It would also result in a gap of just 1 metre between the host dwelling and No.52 which would be at odds with the overall spatial layout of properties in [address].

My attention has been drawn to numerous examples of extensions in the area. [address] is a corner plot at the junction of [address]. Accordingly, even with a two storey extension to the side, it retains the spacious feel which is characteristic of [address]. Nos 21 and [address] do not share many of the characteristics of the other properties in the street including the extent of side space afforded to other properties. The properties on Hawes Lane1 and Dartmouth Road2 are a different design to the host dwelling. For these reasons, these examples are not comparable with the appeal proposal.

I saw that [address] shares many of the features of properties on [address]. It has been extended by way of a two storey side extension to within one metre of the side boundary with its neighbouring property. However the property is well elevated from the road and the extension is set well back from the front elevation of the property. For these reasons it is not comparable to the proposal before me.

[name] is approximately one mile from the appeal site and the properties have a catslide roof to the side in much the same way as the appeal property. The examples provided to me3 indicate how an extension to one dwelling can unbalance the symmetry of a pair.

Bringing all this together, I conclude that the proposal would not be of a scale and form which would respect the host dwelling or positively contribute to the character of the street scene, thereby conflicting with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan adopted January 2019 (BLP) and Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021 (TLP). The proposal would also conflict with part b of Policy 8 of the BLP, insofar as it requires more generous side space to be provided where a higher spatial standard exists and should be retained in order to protect the visual amenity of the area. 1 Number 203 2 Numbers 20 and 22 3 Numbers 163, 165, 207 and 209

The two-storey side extension would extend the appeal property closer to the boundary with No 52. Windows proposed on the side elevation would not serve habitable rooms and a condition could secure obscure glazing. The extension, including the rear projection would be set well down from the main roof. With the intervening garage to No 52, there would be sufficient separation to prevent a harmful impact on the living conditions of those neighbouring occupiers by virtue of outlook or privacy.

The proposed first-floor extension, with its hipped roof, would sit well below the main ridge and away from No 48’s boundary, avoiding harm to its outlook. Although the ground-floor extension would project beyond No 48’s rear elevation, its flat roof and northern position mean it would not adversely affect the living conditions of the neighbour.

There is already some mutual overlooking between the host property and No 48 from existing first-floor windows. Several neighbouring homes (Nos 38, 40, 44, and [address]) have rear extensions with similar fenestration. However, the proposed full-height windows and Juliet balcony would allow occupants to stand and view the garden of No 48 more directly and for longer periods, increasing the sense of overlooking and harming the neighbour’s privacy.

I therefore find that although the proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers by virtue of outlook, it would result in a harmful impact on the privacy of the occupier of No 48 by virtue of overlooking. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy D3 of TLP and Policies 6, 8 and 37 of the BLP which seek to safeguard the privacy of adjoining residents.

I have considered other matters raised by interested parties including, but not limited to, parking and boundary wall responsibilities. However, given that I have identified harm in respect of the main issues, these are not matters on which my decision turns.

[name] appreciate the appellants’ need for additional accommodation, there is no evidence before me that this can only be achieved by the appeal proposal. The development brings about a permanent alteration to the building, whereas it is likely that the family’s needs will change over the longer term.

The proposed development is contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.