Appeal 6001155

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of rear garage, construction of part one/two rear and side extension and elevational alterations at [site address] , [site address] , Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03325/HPA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Site Location Plan titled ‘[name] and [name] 25019-01, 25019-05, 25019-06 and 25019-07.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

A revised site location plan was submitted with the appeal. It amends the site boundary to align with the [name] 25019-01 (titled ‘Site & [name]), on which the Council based its original decision. The revised plan now includes the side access and the rear garden. In deciding whether it is appropriate to accept this plan, I have had regard to the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. It states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and what is considered by the Inspector at appeal should be essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage. In this instance, this revised plan is provided for clarity. It does not evolve the scheme, and the Council has already considered the scheme as a whole and as presented in that plan at the application stage. Moreover, the appeal form confirms that the appellants own all of the land involved in the appeal. I am therefore satisfied that accepting the revised site location plan would not prejudice any interested party, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out in the banner heading, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the proposed development also comprises the demolition of the rear garage and elevational alterations. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

There is disagreement between the main parties regarding the measurements. In the absence of other substantive evidence, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted scaled and annotated plans.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed extension on: • the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 45 and [address], with regard to outlook, daylight, sunlight and privacy.

The appeal property sits on a suburban residential street characterised by predominantly two-storey semi-detached properties of largely similar design. Prevailing characteristics include a consistent plot rhythm, comparable building lines, and generous front and rear gardens. Many dwellings have been extended and altered, with side and rear additions of varying design, scale, form and siting.

Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (the LP) is specific in respect of alterations to the side of properties. It requires a proposal of two or more storeys to be separated from the side boundary by a minimum of 1 metre. This is to prevent a cramped appearance and the terracing of separate dwellings.

The proposed extension would be visible from the highway and would reduce the existing space between it and the shared boundary with [address]. However, an approximately 1m gap would be retained at the narrowest point. As the side elevation of the proposed extension would not run parallel to the boundary, this gap would widen towards the rear. Accordingly, the proposal would maintain sufficient separation from the neighbouring property so as not to appear cramped or to create a terracing effect here. Moreover, the recessed position of the extension from the principal elevation, would ensure that it appears as a subservient addition to the host building. From the rear, the hipped roof of the two-storey element would be set down appropriately from the main ridge.

Although the single-storey element of the scheme would extend substantially to the rear, its setback from neighbouring boundaries and its gable roof form would reduce its bulk and massing. Moreover, it would not project beyond the existing garage building line. In the context of a large and deep rear garden, the proposed extension would not have an excessive scale or depth. It would therefore not constitute a disproportionate or visually intrusive addition to the host building and would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would also therefore accord with the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023), which expects extensions to respond to local character and remain subservient in scale.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed extension would not harm the character and appearance of the host building or the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with [name] 6, 8 and 37, which, in summary, promote high‐quality design that respects the scale and form of existing buildings. The proposed extension would also comply with the London Plan (2021) Policies D1 and D4. These policies, amongst other considerations, seek to deliver good-quality design.

Given its overall scale and, in particular, depth of over 8m, the proposed development would undoubtedly change the relationship between the appeal site and neighbours on both sides. However, the extensions would be set away from the shared boundaries, and the roof pitches of the single-storey and two-storey extension elements would drop down towards the boundaries.

While the proposed extension would be visible to the occupiers of Nos 45 and 49, it would not be of such a scale as to have a detrimental impact on the outlook of the occupiers of these properties, which would principally remain down through their own open and spacious private gardens.

I have had regard to the concerns raised in relation to the potential loss of daylight and sunlight received by the rear garden and rear-facing windows of neighbouring properties, particularly at No 45. Given the overall height, position and setback of the proposed extension, together with the large rear gardens of Nos 45 and 49, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that it would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight.

In terms of privacy, no new first‐floor side windows are proposed, and the new rear first-floor windows would afford views similar to those from the existing elevated windows. The proposed extension would therefore not create additional opportunities for overlooking towards Nos 45 or 49. It therefore would not result in a loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupiers.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed extension would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 45 or 49 with regard to outlook, daylight, sunlight or privacy. Consequently, it would comply with the LP Policy 37, which, amongst other matters, seeks to protect existing residential occupiers from inappropriate development resulting in overbearing impact, loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and relevant statute.

Conditions specifying the time for commencement and requiring compliance with the approved plans are necessary for reasons of certainty. A further condition requiring external materials to match the existing has been imposed is also necessary to ensure that the proposed development integrates satisfactorily with the host building and surrounding area.

For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.