Appeal 6001508

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a proposed 2 storey rear extension at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03975/HPA, and subject to the conditions below.

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 • [name] 2117-05 August 2025 Existing and Proposed Plan and

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

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the new first floor window on the side elevation shown as serving the bathroom on the approved plans, has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed 2 storey rear extension on the existing living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No. [address], with particular regard to its height, projection, and positioning relative to the nearest first floor window of that property.

The appeal site lies within a residential area characterised by predominantly two‐storey semi‐detached dwellings with a uniform appearance when viewed from the street. From my visit, it was evident that a number of neighbouring properties have been extended to the rear at both ground and first‐floor level, contributing to a varied pattern of development on the rear garden elevations.

The proposed extension would sit close to the shared boundary with No. [address] and would span the full width of the host dwelling, projecting to a depth comparable with that neighbour’s existing rear single‐storey extension.

During my site visit, I noted that the rear first-floor window of No. 23, which serves the room closest to the proposed extension, is obscurely glazed. As a result, the outlook from this room is already significantly restricted.

While the proposed extension would be perceptible from this room, the degree of enclosure created would be limited because of that existing glazing treatment.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposed extension would not result in any unacceptable change to the existing living conditions of the occupiers of No. 23 in terms of outlook.

The proposed extension would result in some reduction in the level of daylight to that nearest first-floor window. Neither party has provided a daylight assessment to demonstrate the resulting level of change in daylight levels to that room. However, given the remaining openness of the rear aspect, coupled with the orientation and projection of the appeal proposal relative to that window, I am satisfied that the degree of daylight loss would not be so substantial as to give rise to an unacceptable change to the exiting living conditions of the occupiers of No. 23 in this regard.

Neither party has provided a sunlight assessment to demonstrate the resulting level of change in sunlight levels to that room. However, the rear elevations of the appeal property and No 23, face east. The appeal proposal would be situated to the north of No 2. Given this orientation, the proposed extension would not result in any significant loss of sunlight to the neighbouring property. Therefore, there would be no unacceptable change to the existing living condition of the occupants of No 23.

The Council refer to Policy 6 ([name]) of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan January 2019 (LP), in their reason for refusal. However, this policy relates solely to design and layout, requiring extensions to respect or complement the style and materials of the host building. It does not address living conditions and is therefore not determinative in this case

Overall, for the reasons set out above, I find that the proposed two-story extension would not be harmful to the existing living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No [address], with particular regard to its height, projection, and positioning relative to the nearest first-floor window of that property.

Therefore, the appeal proposal would be in accordance with Policy 37 (General Design of Development) of the LP, which in so far as is relevant requires development to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including protection from loss of daylight, sunlight, privacy and undue overshadowing.

The appeal proposal includes the insertion of a first‐floor side window in the northern elevation facing No. [address]. The submitted plans confirm that this window would be obscurely glazed and non‐openable below 1.7 metres above internal floor level. These measures are effective in preventing direct views towards the neighbouring property. Subject to a condition securing the installation and retention of the obscure glazing and restricted opening as shown on the plans, I am satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to overlooking or a loss of privacy for the occupiers of No. [address], and their living conditions would therefore be safeguarded.

In addition, to the above-mentioned condition, to meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement. A condition specifying the approved drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. A condition is necessary to ensure that the external materials used match those of the existing house to maintain the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

Each condition meets the tests of necessity, relevance, enforceability, precision, and reasonableness as set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I conclude that the proposal accords with the development plan when taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it, in line with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.