Appeal 6002131

The appeal is dismissed.

The application subject of this appeal was a resubmission following a previous refusal of permission. However, since the submission of the appeal the appellant has been granted planning permission for a modified scheme1. The material difference between the recently permitted scheme and that subject of appeal relates to the two storey bedroom extension proposed close to the neighbouring property at No 40. This extension was omitted in the permitted scheme.

The most recent decision is material to my considerations attracting significant weight since it represents the appellant’s fall-back. In this respect, in the light of the recent permission, most elements of the appellant’s appeal scheme are acceptable to the Council.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents at [address] with particular reference to sunlight, overshadowing and visual impact.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set in an area displaying distinct suburban characteristics. It adjoins No 40, and the pair’s rear walls or elevations are in the same flat plane. The properties are separated by a fence, and the proposed single storey extension permitted by the Council would run virtually along the line of the fence. Above the single storey extension, the appellant proposes a 1 Ref 25/05646/HPA two storey extension so as to enlarge a bedroom. This would project about 1.5m from the rear wall, very close to, indeed almost on the common boundary.

No 40 has a large glazed opening at ground floor level and a window just above it close to the common boundary, and an area of external amenity space. Having regard to the orientation of the properties, the proposed extension would result in some loss of sunlight and overshadowing to these glazed areas during early summer mornings. This, combined with what I consider would be the overbearing impact and unneighbourly effect on the residents of No 40 of a two storey development built virtually on the common boundary, renders the scheme unacceptable.

I therefore conclude that this two storey element of the proposal would materially harm the amenities currently enjoyed by the neighbouring residents by reason of loss of early morning sunlight at certain times of the year and by the overbearing nature of the proposal. Accordingly, this part of the appellant’s proposals materially conflict with those provisions of policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan directed to ensure development respects the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the references to the National Planning Policy Framework, and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on [name]. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading me to my