Appeal 6003485

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing conservatory and construction of single storey rear/side extension and extension/alterations to existing garage, construction of two storey rear extension, addition of side dormers to create enlargement to existing roof space with solar panels and gable end and elevational alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04277/HPA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of the decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: 25029-01, 25029-06, 25029-07, 25029-08, 25029-09, 25029-12 and Location Plan.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The new windows in the eastern dormers of the development hereby permitted shall be installed fitted with obscured glazing and fixed shut such that no part of those 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. The fixed sections and obscured glazing shall be retained in that form thereafter.

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. Appeal Planning Officer 6003485

Submitted correspondence indicates that the parties have agreed a revised description of the proposed development, and I have used that in the banner heading above.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], 19 and [address] with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The area around the appeal site is residential in nature and characterised by detached dwellings set within generally spacious plots, set back from the highway with frontage parking and/or garages. A notable characteristic of the appeal property and the other two dwellings at this end of the cul-de-sac is their prominent front facing gable roofs and the generous spacing between the buildings. This spacing forms a key component of the local character, contributing to a sense of openness. However, the wider cul-de-sac exhibits a greater degree of variation in architectural form including different roof configurations and elevation designs.

The proposed dormers would extend across much of the length of each roof slope and, due to the spacing between neighbouring properties, would be visible from the road, albeit views of the dormers on one side would be limited given the corner positioning of the appeal property. While the proposed dormers would be larger in scale than those existing, they would be set back from the front gable, which would remain the dominant and defining feature. They would also be set within the roof slope, such that the generous spacing between neighbouring buildings would be largely preserved. The dormers would therefore be seen as additions within this consistent roof form rather than as dominant or competing features.

Furthermore, dormer extensions are evident within the wider locality, and the proposed design would appear in keeping with this established pattern. Therefore, this element of the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The part one/part two storey rear extension would adopt the same roof form as the existing dwelling, thereby maintaining a coherent and unified appearance rather than appearing as an incongruous or competing addition. Furthermore, the changes to the garage and ground extension would be modest in scale and largely screened from the streetscene by the existing garages, significantly limiting their visual presence in public views.

While the proposal would introduce additional built form, the key features of the appeal property, namely its gabled roof form and the clear visual separation from neighbouring properties, would remain. Therefore, although the proposal would cumulatively increase the scale of the dwelling, it would not result in a disproportionate addition nor erode the defining character of the appeal property or Appeal Planning Officer 6003485 the wider area. Consequently, it would not appear dominant or unsympathetic, having regard to the varied form and design of properties within the locality.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore complies with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (Local Plan) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which together require development to be of a scale and form that respects and complements development in the surrounding area and responds to the existing character of a place. It also accords with principle DG5 of the [name] Planning Document (2023) which indicates proposals should adopt a considered approach and respond to local building forms and patterns of development.

The existing outlook from the dormer window on the facing flank of No 5 is primarily towards the roof of the appeal property, including a small dormer which currently serves a stairway/landing, with some angled views to the front and rear. Similarly, the outlook from the ground floor side windows of No 5 is largely confined to the shared boundary fence. From the rear garden of No 5, the outlook towards the appeal property is moderated by the presence of the boundary fence, however the separation distance between the two properties creates a sense of openness.

The proposed side dormers on the facing flank of the appeal property would extend along much of the roof slope and project higher up the roof than the existing dormer. While the outlook from the dormer window at No 5 would change to include views of the enlarged dormers and the proposed rear extension, this would not significantly alter the already restricted outlook or materially increase the sense of enclosure compared with the existing situation. Importantly, the established and generous spacing between the two properties would be largely retained.

At ground floor level, the modest scale of the single storey side extension, together with the already restricted outlook, would mean that the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on outlook from the side windows of No 5. From the rear garden the proposed rear extension and side dormer would be visible but due to the separation distance between the properties this would not result in an unacceptable reduction in outlook. Therefore, the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5 with regards to outlook.

The outlook from the rear windows of [address] is currently open across its sizeable rear garden. The outlook from No 19 and its garden towards the appeal property are filtered by the presence of an outbuilding along the boundary and established planting. The proposed part one/ part two storey rear extension would extend closer to the boundary with No 19, however, due to the substantial distance retained between the extension and the rear elevation of No 19, there would be no unacceptable harm to outlook from the rear windows. While the extension would be visible from the rear garden of No 19, views would remain partially screened by the existing outbuilding and planting along the boundary. Consequently, the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 19 with regards to outlook.

The outlook from the rear windows and garden of No 21 is similarly open in nature. Due to the positioning of No 21 to the side of the appeal property, rather than Appeal Planning Officer 6003485 directly to the rear, direct views of the appeal property are limited. In addition, vegetation along the shared boundary further restricts views between the two sites. While the proposed part one/ part two storey rear extension would extend closer to the shared boundary, the separation distance would remain substantial. As a result, the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 21 with regards to outlook.

The proposed side dormers would include two high-level windows serving a bathroom and shower room, a larger central window in a similar position to the existing dormer serving a landing, and two smaller windows on either side serving two studies. The windows in the landing and studies would introduce direct views towards the facing dormer window of No 5. The increase in the number of windows may give rise to a perception of overlooking. However, this could be appropriately mitigated through a planning condition requiring those windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut below eye level. The high-level windows would not require obscure glazing, as by virtue of their position they would not provide direct views into habitable rooms at No 5.

At ground floor level, the proposal includes an additional side window facing No 5, however, any potential overlooking would be effectively prevented by the existing boundary fence. Therefore, subject to such a condition, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5 in terms of privacy.

The existing rear bedroom window of the appeal property already affords views towards No 19 and its rear garden, however, these are limited by the fence, vegetation and an outbuilding. While the rear extension would be located closer to the shared boundary, the existing screening would remain effective in filtering direct views. As a result, any additional views into the rear garden of No 19, including its seating area, would be limited and would not result in a harmful reduction in privacy to the occupiers of No 19.

While the occupiers of No 19 have suggested that the first-floor rear windows should be obscure glazed, this would not be reasonable given that they would serve primary habitable rooms where an outlook is expected. Given that there would be no harmful overlooking from these windows, such a requirement would therefore not be justified.

Opportunities for direct overlooking of No 21 are limited and filtered by vegetation. Given the separation distance and intervening features, the proposal would not result in any unacceptable overlooking or a harmful loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 21.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], 19 or [address] with regard to outlook and privacy and therefore complies with Policy 37 of the Local Plan and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which together require proposals to deliver appropriate outlook and respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers including privacy.

In addition to the condition discussed above, I recommend conditions in relation to commencement of development and requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty. A condition Appeal Planning Officer 6003485 regarding external materials is also necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above.