Appeal 6000583

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site comprises a two storey, hipped roof semi-detached dwelling with a sizeable side extension in a residential area. There are various styles of buildings locally, but despite the side addition, the appeal property maintains a symmetry with the dwelling it is attached to. The sloping topography and gap between this building and the neighbouring bungalow mean that the house on the appeal site appears prominent in the street scene.

The Council does not dispute that the proposed two storey rear extension would be acceptable. The proposed scheme also includes a new part two storey, part single storey side extension. The Council’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document 2023 states that extensions should appear subservient in scale to avoid uncharacteristically large additions which can significantly change the appearance of a property.

Due to the sloping land levels, the existing side extension sits below the level of the original house. The two-storey part of the proposed side addition would have a similar depth and width to the extension it would replace. Although its hipped roof would be higher than the existing lean-to roof, this would reflect the roof form and materials on the main house and sit below the eaves level. For these reasons, this part of the proposal in isolation would appear subservient to the original building.

Nevertheless, the single storey element of the proposed side addition would create a further level of development extending as deep as the original house. This would give the side and front of the house a stepped appearance and result in the proposed side extensions exceeding the width of the original building. Due to its width, depth and stepped appearance, the proposed side extension overall would create an overly bulky and dominant addition and cause a harmful loss of symmetry to the pair of semi-detached properties. This would be evident in views of the building from [address].

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan January 2016 (BLP). Together, these require residential extensions to respect the scale and form of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area, amongst other things.

The site lies adjacent to a detached bungalow at [address] (No 21). Due to the steep slope on this part of the road, No 21 sits at a lower level than the appeal dwelling. This neighbouring house has several side windows facing towards the appeal property.

The proposed side extension would extend almost the entire length of the neighbouring bungalow. The single storey hipped roof part of this would be closer to No 21 than the existing extended house, only around 1.2m from the mutual boundary. Due to the proximity and height of the proposed side extension relative to the side windows in the neighbouring dwelling, the proposed scheme would have an overbearing effect, dominating the outlook of the occupiers of No 21 when using these rooms.

There are existing side habitable room windows on the ground and first floors of the appeal dwelling. As the proposal would reduce the amount and size of these and the new upper-level openings would be a similar distance from No 21, the scheme would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupiers of this neighbouring house when using their side facing rooms.

The appellant states that planning permission was granted in March 2025 to extend the lower ground floor to within 1.2m of No 211 and that the current scheme reflects the outcome of a pre-application meeting with the Council. However, no details of the approved scheme or meeting discussion have been provided to enable me to compare the approved or pre-application schemes with the proposal currently before me.

Consequently, whilst the proposed development would not harm the privacy of occupiers at No 21, it would harm their outlook. This would be contrary to Policy D3 of the LP and Policy 37 of the BLP where they require developments to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including delivering appropriate outlook. 1 Planning application ref: DC/25/00181/FULL6

The relevant reason for refusal refers to Policy 6 of the BLP, but this relates to the design of extensions and does not directly link to the harm identified. Therefore, I find no specific conflict with Policy 6 when reaching my conclusion on this matter.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.