Appeal 6001695

The appeal is dismissed.

The Councils decision notice contains two typographical errors, specifically the references to [address] and to Policy 7 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP). These errors were highlighted through the Council’s appeal statement and acknowledged as such at paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5 of the appellant’s final comments. The parties are agreed that the decision notice should have referred to [address] and Policy 37 of the BLP.

An interested party has also referred to ‘confusion’ in respect of the property numbers that are referred to. However, I do not find that they or any other party would be prejudiced if I were to have regard to the correct property number and planning policy refence in my determination of the appeal.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises a single storey rear/side wraparound extension and elevational alterations. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The appellant provided some additional plans with the appeal. I have not had regard to these in the interests of fairness. Notwithstanding this, I was able to fully assess the impact on the neighbours on the basis of the original drawings and my observations during the site visit.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents at [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a [site address] with rear garden, forming part of a mid-terraced house. The area is characterised by late‐Victorian and Edwardian houses, in a suburban setting, many of which appear to have been converted to flats. The neighbouring [site address] is No 77, with the first floor flat being No 77A.

During my site inspection I was able to observe the existing boundary fencing, garden shed and natural growth which together provide an albeit limited but varied view with some sense of depth and space between the existing outrigger flank walls of No 77 and No 79. The ground level at No 77 is marginally higher than that of the appeal site, which affords occupiers opportunities to appreciate glimpses of skyline from side windows, although at an oblique angle.

This already limited outlook would be diminished further by the proposed wraparound extension, which introduces a structure both noticeably higher and substantially wider than the existing boundary fencing and modest garden shed. Its scale and bulk would project beyond the established building line formed by the flank wall of the outrigger and the rear elevation, creating an unduly dominant and enclosing form of development. As a result, the proposal would significantly increase the sense of visual confinement and overbearing enclosure when viewed from the neighbouring property.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the appellant could, in principle, erect a 2‐metre‐high brick boundary wall under permitted development rights (PDR)—as noted at paragraph 3.2 of their final comments—this does not justify the scale, bulk, or massing of the development proposed. A simple boundary treatment of this nature would remain a relatively modest, linear feature. By contrast, the proposed extension represents a more substantial and imposing built form. I therefore do not accept that the scheme before me would offer any meaningful aesthetic improvement over what could be achieved under PDR. Indeed, the proposed development would introduce a far more dominant, visually intrusive, and discordant structure with appreciably greater harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Incorporating the enclosure of the lightwell, the proposal would result in a length of approximately 9m of featureless brick wall, sitting tight onto the shared boundary of the properties. I find that the proposal would have a markedly oppressive effect on the outlook from No 77. The wall would dominate the immediate field of view with a continuous expanse of blank masonry, creating a strong sense of enclosure that would be visually overbearing.

My attention has been drawn to development at 95 and [address]. In the case of No 95, I note that the proposal extends to the length of the flank wall of the outrigger and not beyond the rear wall, with a lower eaves’ height. [name] 29, the side access was retained, and the extensions flank wall was set off the boundary which maintained a sense of space. Therefore, in assessing the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours, I find that the site context and the individual circumstances are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. As such, I have assessed the proposal on its own merits.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed single storey wraparound extension by reason of its height, depth and proximity to the boundary introduces an overbearing addition which creates an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook to No [address], contrary to Policy 37 of the BLP, which seeks, amongst other things, to require development to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. I have found no conflict with Policy 6 of the BLP insofar as it concerns the main issue, as the policy relates to matters of character and appearance.

I have found the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its design. However, the extension would harmfully impact on neighbouring occupiers. On this basis, the proposal conflicts 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.