Appeal 6001718

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for retention of single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01645/FULL6.

As the description implies and as I saw, the development has been built. The appellant wishes to retain it. I shall therefore treat the appeal as if the original application had been made under the provisions of section 73A of the Act1.

This was a second application to retain the development, but this time around it was accompanied by a Daylight and [name] prepared in accordance with Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines. The officer report clarifies that ‘the supporting document has demonstrated that there would be no significant impact to this adjoining property (No 25) with regards to loss of light.’ Nevertheless, some Council concerns remained and are reflected in the main issue identified.

The main issue is the effect of the completed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents at [address] with particular reference to outlook and visual impact.

The appeal property forms part of a small terrace of attractive properties set in a suburban environment. The dwellings all display rear two storey outriggers, being part of the original design. The appellant has infilled the space at ground floor level between the side elevation of his outrigger and the boundary with the neighbouring 1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). property, No 25. That boundary, in common with all the boundaries around No 25’s rear garden, was marked with a high fence.

The parties agree that the extension increased the height of solid development on the boundary by about a metre. The Council’s concerns centre on the effect of the development on some of No 25’s internal areas and on the external amenity area. The only information provided in respect of No 25’s internal layout was provided by the appellants, the accuracy of which the Council has not questioned.

No 25’s kitchen is served by a door set in a bay projecting sideways from the property’s outrigger. The upper part of the door is glazed, whilst the lower part is panelled. The outlook from the space served by this door would have been very limited prior to the extension’s construction, being directly towards the high fence, at fairly close quarters. I do not therefore consider that the outlook from the kitchen would have been significantly affected by the single storey extension, or that its users would feel a materially increased sense of enclosure or visual impact.

A ground floor window is set in No 25 rear elevation and serves a dining room. Prior to the erection of the extension the outlook from the window would have been constrained by the side wall of the bay serving the kitchen door. Users of the room would already have experienced a tunnelling effect given the presence of the bay and the high fence on the boundary. The increased height of development on the boundary would not, in my view, give rise to any unacceptable level of harm in the terms suggested by the Council.

No 25’s external amenity area is surrounded by high fencing, significantly higher than is usual in suburban developments. The increased height of the extension in comparison, represents a small proportion of the entire length of No 25’s rear garden area’s enclosure, and I do not consider that it has materially affected its reasonable enjoyment by its residents.

I therefore conclude that the development has not harmed the living conditions previously enjoyed by the residents of [address] by reason of loss of outlook, visual impact or for any other reson. Accordingly, I find no material conflict with those provisions of policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (BLP) directed to ensure that development respects the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring buildings.

Since the development is substantially complete no conditions are considered necessary

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the references to the National Planning Policy Framework, and other development plan policies. Whilst not conclusive in my considerations I note that the occupants of No 25 did not object on being consulted. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading me to my conclusions.