Appeal 6000682

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and local area, and on the living conditions of occupiers of No.[address].

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with an existing single-storey side extension. The local area is characterised by a variety of designs but is predominantly comprised of two-storey detached and semi-detached properties with gaps between buildings which contributes to a spacious character in the street scene. The appeal proposal seeks to erect a first-floor extension over the existing ground floor side extension.

I am directed to policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan (LP) (adopted January 2019) which states that when considering proposals of two or more storeys, a minimum of 1 metre should be retained from the side boundary for the full height and length of the building. The extension proposed would not be set in from the boundary with No.[address]. As a result, it would appear somewhat cramped in its plot and considering the positive effect that space between buildings has on the locale, this would be incongruous and harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Particular attention has been paid by both parties to the adjoining No.266 which includes a two-storey side extension. I understand the frustration of the appellant in this regard, and there is some merit to balancing the handed pair. However, this was evidently granted some time ago and the relationship between No.266 and the house adjacent is different as the other property is offset by around 90 degrees. Moreover, I also understand there is an electricity substation between those two dwellings which creates more space. As such, this has retained space between the extension of 266 and the side boundary, which would not be the case in the proposal before me.

My attention is also drawn to other extensions approved by the Council, including at 150 Southlands Road1 and 86 Balmoral Avenue2 for ostensibly similar developments. However, other than a short description I have no further information on these applications before me and every proposal is determined on its own merits. As such, these have not been determinative.

While the front building line of the street and host ridge height would be maintained, and matching materials used in the construction, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and local area in conflict with policies 6, 8, and 37 of the LP as explained above. These also seek, among other things, to ensure that space or gaps between buildings should be respected or maintained where these contribute to the character of the area.

Due to the relative orientations of the host property and No.[address], the rear garden of the latter is adjacent the side and front of the appeal site as they face different streets. The additional mass of the first floor extension with no set-in from the side boundary would harmfully reduce outlook from the rear garden of No.13 and appear visually intrusive for users of that space given the proximity of the proposal.

With regards to overshadowing, the location of the appeal property to the southwest of No.13 does raise the potential for this to occur when the sun is to the south and southwest. There is no assessment of this matter before me and as such, I share the concerns relating to a loss of sun and daylight to the rear area of No.13 would occur in a harmful manner.

Taken together, the proposal would harm the living conditions of occupiers of No.[address] with regards to outlook and overshadowing. This would conflict with policy 37 of the LP which seeks, among other things, to ensure development proposals respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

I acknowledge there would be benefits to the occupiers of the appeal property through increased living space. However, this would be private in nature and would not outweigh the harm I have identified above. I am also informed that sustainable materials, such as efficient glazing and insulation, would be used in the construction of the extension. This is of course welcomed in construction, although I have no details of any of these materials before me. As such this would not outweigh the harm I have identified. 1 23/03038/FULL6 2 23/04019/FULL6

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material planning considerations which would alter this finding. The appeal is therefore dismissed.