Appeal 6000496

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The appellant has advised that following the decision notice the Council provided verbal confirmation that reason for refusal No 2 (Living Conditions) would not have been pursued in the event that the proposal had been acceptable in terms of its effect to character and appearance. Whilst this may be the case, the purpose of this appeal is to consider what was before the Council at the time of their decision. In any case, there is no formal confirmation that this reason for refusal has been conceded and this appeal has been recommended accordingly.

The Council do not contest the effects of the single storey rear extension, rear dormer, solar panels to the side roof slopes, and landscaping works. I see no reason to disagree.

Accordingly, the main issues within this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed two storey front and side extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area; and • the effect of the proposed rear balcony on the living conditions of the occupants of No [address] with particular regard to privacy and disturbance.

[address] is varied in terms of its character and appearance with an array of detached and semi-detached dwellings of varying design. The area within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site is no different, though properties on the same side of the road as the appeal dwelling are generally detached, with those opposite being semi-detached.

[site address] is a two storey, detached dwelling which retains much of its original architectural design intention and material palette. This includes the forward projecting bay window, with catslide roof to the side as well as the palette of blackened wood, render, and red brick detailing.

Though there is no strict uniformity in the appearance of the detached dwellings within the vicinity of the site, there is an observable group of dwellings which display similar architectural features and proportions to the host dwelling. It is this planned eclectic nature of the dwellings within proximity to the appeal site, and the architectural interest of dwellings that contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development introduces a substantial two storey addition to the side of the host dwelling which would sit flush with the existing forward projection and extend to the edge of the pre-existing garage.

The proposed development would primarily result in the loss of the catslide roof and by virtue of its siting, would not appear as a subservient addition to the host dwelling. Instead, it would substantially enlarge the size of the original dwelling. Furthermore, the absence of a setback from the front elevation or set down from the roof ridge would result in a lack of clear distinction between the addition and original structure. Overall, the proposed extensions would result in a dominant effect relative to the existing dwelling. This would not be offset by using black timber to distinguish the extension from the original house. It would instead appear as an incongruous addition and command visual attention away from the original dwelling.

Furthermore, the development would result in the loss of the catslide roof, which is a key architectural feature of the host dwelling. This element is distinctive within the street scene, as it is a recurring feature along the road and therefore contributes positively to the area’s visual quality and interest. Its removal would erode the established and positive character of the host dwelling and diminish its contribution to the wider street.

Indeed, the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (July 2023) (the SPD) notes that extensions to existing dwellings should respond to the character and appearance and appear subservient to the host dwelling or else they can have a detrimental impact on character.

Notwithstanding the above, I find that the proposed windows to the front elevation would be acceptable. Their placement would logical, aligning vertically and horizontally in relation to the existing windows.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. Therefore, I find conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan and D3 and D4 of the London Plan which, amongst other things, aim to ensure development positively contributes to the existing street scene, complement adjacent buildings, and complement the host dwelling. I further find inconsistency with the SPD.

The Council has referred to Policy D3 of the London Plan within their reason for refusal. Upon review, this Policy primarily relates to optimising site capacity by way of providing additional dwellings rather than the extension of those existing.

The appeal dwelling has a roof terrace that is located above the single storey garage. The terrace projects just beyond the rear elevation of the appeal property and provides extensive views into gardens of neighbouring properties. The proposed balcony would offer views to similar effect.

The evidence before indicates that the terrace dates back to at least 2012, if not before. However, the submitted plans indicate that the terrace has been structurally condemned and is as such not in use. On this basis, I am unable to determine that the terrace’s conditions of overlooking and loss of privacy are existing. Accordingly, the proposed balcony would result in new vantage points from the appeal dwelling into the rear gardens of adjacent occupants, eroding their actual and perceived privacy.

However, with regard to noise and disturbance, there is no pertinent evidence before me that would lead me to conclude that the noise produced would be beyond that produced within a private rear garden. As such I find that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of adjacent occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the living conditions of adjacent occupiers by way of loss of privacy. I therefore find conflict with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan which, amongst other things, aims to ensure the protection of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by way of privacy.

The Council has referred to Policy D3 of the London Plan within their reason for refusal. Upon review, this Policy primarily relates to optimising site capacity by way of providing additional dwellings rather than the extension of those existing.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a potential fallback position established through the Permitted Development (PD) process which may allow for extensive extension of appeal dwelling. There must be a real prospect that a fallback position would be implemented and following from this it is for the decision-maker to exercise their planning judgement on this matter to ascribe the appropriate weight.

The images provided demonstrate the addition of three porches, the removal of traditional detailing, alterations to windows, hip-to-gable roof extensions, a full width rear dormer, roof lights, and multiple rear extensions of varying bulks could be completed under the pursuance of PD rights. I agree with the appellant that these changes could result in a negative impact to the appearance of the host dwelling and area, perhaps more so than the appeal scheme.

However, whilst this may be the case, I find that the appellant’s own concession that the PD scheme is of a significantly poorer quality of design and appearance, lessens the likelihood that this scheme would be delivered in any event, and therefore that it would be anything more than a theoretical possibility. Furthermore, the extensions under the PD scheme would be impractical in terms of usable living space as compared to the proposal and would undoubtedly provide a more convoluted strategy for the extension of the host dwelling.

In any event, the absence of any scaled drawings means that I am unable to reasonably assert that they would in fact accord with the provisions of PD as set out within the General Permitted Development Order (2015).

The appellant does note that the scenario provided is not an exhaustive example of possible extensions under PD. Whilst this may be the case, I have no details of any other fallback scheme before me to consider. On the basis of the above reasons, I attach limited weight to this fallback position, and it does not alter my

The appellant has drawn my attention to other development in support of this appeal. While [address] may have been altered, its overall scale remains evident through varied building masses achieved by generous setbacks from the principal elevation. This is also observed at No 46 where the replication of architectural features, such as the bay window, and the implementation of the porch canopy creates an appearance of varied masses, maintaining the legibility of the original design intention of the host dwellings.

Furthermore, 7, 37, and [address] are semi-detached properties with different design characteristics and do not reflect the same architectural approach as the appeal dwelling. Similarly, although extensions at 101 and [address] lack setbacks, these additions have not resulted in the loss of key architectural features and instead respect the original design intentions of those properties.

The development at [address] comprises two new dwellings rather than an extension or alteration of an existing one.

In any event, I do not have full details of all of these schemes, which may have been implemented prior to the current policy context relevant to this appeal. They do not therefore lead me to change my recommendation.

Having regard to the above contents of this report, I do not consider that the fallback position or examples of similar development would carry weight which outweigh the harm to character and appearance and living conditions found. I therefore recommend that this appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.