Appeal 6001839

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council and appellant agree that the first floor side extension is acceptable, I see no reason to disagree. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the rear ground floor extension on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and light.

The appeal dwelling forms one half of a symmetrical pair of semi‐detached dwellings with [address]. The dwellings have modest single storey rear projections on their outer flanks, sharing a boundary of an approximate 1.8 metre (m) high timber fence with some vegetation. Both properties have long, linear gardens. As a result, the occupants of No 20 currently have a generally open and uninterrupted outlook from their rear ground floor glazed doors and windows. Furthermore, despite the side elevation window of No 20 facing the shared boundary, the set back of the single storey rear projection of the appeal dwelling from this boundary means that there is adequate outlook and visual escape above the boundary fence from this window for the occupants of No 20.

The proposed development would introduce a substantial single storey bulk directly next to the shared boundary which would project some distance from the main rear elevation. Though the existing boundary fence would partially screen it, the development would project above it by a similar amount. In addition, whilst existing vegetation along the same boundary would further act to screen the development, it is not possible to secure the vegetation or its effects, within the parameters of this appeal.

As a result, by virtue of its overall bulk and siting, the proposal would be dominant, located directly in front of No. 20’s side facing window and within the outlook of the rear elevation’s glazed doors, where the extension’s full depth would be experienced. This would result in an overbearing impact and the loss of outlook to these fenestrations which would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No

This would be continued within the rear windows of the single storey projection, albeit less harmfully due to their forward siting from the main rear elevation of No 22, and their setting away from the boundary nearest the proposal.

Furthermore, the projection of the proposal above the fence would also dominate outlook from the rear garden of No 20, resulting in an overbearing effect.

Turning to the impact on light, the overall bulk of the proposal and its siting in close proximity to the boundary would result in the reduction of light reaching the ground floor rear and side windows of No 20. This issue would be further exacerbated by the sites’ orientation.

For these reasons, the proposed development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 20 with regard to loss of outlook and light, therefore failing to accord with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). [name], among other things, aim to ensure acceptable impact to neighbouring properties by way of overshadowing, loss of light and overbearing impact.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other development in support of this appeal. [name] have had regard to the developments sited at Numbers 18, 24 and [address], I do not have the full details of them. As a result, I am unable to reasonably assert that their design and contexts can provide a basis of comparison to the proposed development. These developments therefore attract limited weight. In any event, the presence of these developments would not mitigate the harm to living conditions as found above.

[name] acknowledge that the appellant would be willing to accept conditions requiring materials to match the host dwelling and preventing the use of the flat roof as a terrace, these would not mitigate the basis of harm as found above. Furthermore, the Council have not found harm regarding the proposal’s effect on character and appearance, and therefore this is a neutral factor which is not considered within this appeal.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would fail to comply with the development plan. There are no other material considerations which indicate that this appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. I therefore recommend this appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.