Appeal 6000718

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the decision notice as this more accurately and succinctly describes the proposal. This change in description was agreed by the appellant during the application.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to loss of privacy; and (ii) the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including the Chelsfield Park Area of Special Residential Character.

The proposed rear extension includes a modest first floor balcony, serving a first floor bedroom close to the boundary with 8 The Woodlands (No 8). The balcony would be wide but fairly shallow. It would nevertheless provide enough space to stand or sit outside from where there would be a direct view into the garden of the adjacent property, closest to the house where occupants could expect a reasonable degree of privacy.

The existing boundary vegetation, whilst reasonably tall, would not prevent views from the balcony which would be above the hedge. Moreover, vegetation cannot be relied on in the long term to provide sufficient screening. Consequently, my finding is that the balcony would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The proposal would adversely impact the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers through unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (the BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 which require development to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, ensuring they are not harmed by loss of privacy. I have found no conflict with Policy 6 insofar as it concerns this main issue as the policy relates to matters of character and appearance.

Number 10 is a detached two-storey dwelling, with much of the first floor accommodation within the roofspace. It is located on a residential street characterised by large, detached houses which include a mix of both traditional and contemporary dwellings, of differing styles, ages and designs. Plots are large and well landscaped, with deep front gardens and driveways. Many properties, including the neighbouring dwelling at No 8, have been substantially extended. The site lies within the Chelsfield Park Area of Special Residential Character (the ASRC), which according to the BLP derives much of its character from the spacious, sylvan, landscaped and semi-rural setting combined with the wide variety in styles, sizes and designs of housing. This accords with my own observations on site.

The existing property has three front facing gables, with the central gable recessed. It is proposed to retain these features but raise them up to create a first floor storey. The gables would be different heights, with a modest step down from the tallest, closest to No 8, upslope of the property, towards Number 12 (No 12). The central gable would be recessed, as it is currently, and a fourth gable feature would be formed above the front door. Behind this, the main roof ridge would be raised by around 0.9 metres and would be extended rearwards with a section of flat roof. To the rear, the dwelling would have a two-storey appearance with a single-storey extension replacing an existing conservatory which I observed had already been removed at the time of my site visit.

The front elevation of the building would be significantly enlarged by increasing the bulk of the building at first floor level and raising the height of the gable features. These alterations would significantly change the character of the property. However, given the varied and substantial properties locally, the scale of the extended property and the formation of prominent front facing gables would be in keeping with development in the surrounding area. As such, it would be compatible with the ASRC.

Moreover, where it would be viewed within the streetscene, the additional height and bulk would help to address the considerable difference in scale between the relatively small appeal property and the substantially extended, large and tall contemporary dwelling at No 8. Although taller than No 12, with the eaves increased in height on this boundary, it would not be overbearing or appear unduly tall compared to this adjacent property.

Other matters were raised by the Council in its officer report but did not form part of its reason for refusal. These related to the balcony being out of character and unnecessary windows due to the design of the rear single-storey extension. However, I find no specific harm with these features in terms of the character and appearance of the proposed development.

My finding is that the alterations to this dwelling, when viewed in the context of surrounding development, would not harm the character and appearance of the host property, the area or the ARSC. It would therefore accord with Policies 6, 44 and 37 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (the LP) which together require a high quality of design, that respect the scale and form of the host property and surrounding development and contribute to local character.

I have found the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its design. However, the balcony would harmfully impact on neighbouring occupiers and this makes the scheme unacceptable. For this reason, the appeal should be dismissed.