Appeal 6003603

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 1st floor rear extension/small porch to the front elevation/some refurbishment works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03735/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: 7672974 site plan, 7672974 site plan 3, Existing and [name] and Layouts (Planning 001), Location Plan.

The roof materials and render to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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 main issues in this 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 57 and [address], with particular regard to outlook, light and privacy.

The appeal property is an end of terrace dwelling which, in common with other end-terraces in this area, has a significant gap between it and the start of the next terrace. This gap contributes to a sense of openness to the side. It shares a consistent scale, materials and roof form with the adjoining properties, characterised by a continuous pitched roof and uniform eaves height, which together create a cohesive appearance. The property also benefits from a wide plot and side access, with a driveway providing off-street parking.

The proposed first floor rear extension would be constructed above the existing ground floor rear extension and would incorporate a flat roof. While part of the extension would be visible from the street due to the gap between the appeal property and the adjacent dwelling, these views would be limited.

The proposed rear extension would also be visible from the rear gardens of No 57 Commented [LM1]: Does this cover all of the Council’s points about being of unsympathetic design and and No 61, however, views would be filtered by existing boundary treatments to uncharacteristic of the area? either side. The extension would not span the full width of the rear elevation and would therefore remain proportionate to the host dwelling. [name] acknowledge that the extension would be at first floor level, a number of properties within the surrounding area feature rear extensions with flat roofs, and given the variation in their form and scale, the proposal would not appear out of place. Furthermore, the extension would not be visible from public vantage points to the rear of the site. Accordingly, it would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed front porch would have a simple flat roof and would appear subservient in scale to the host dwelling. There are examples of similar porches within the surrounding area, and as such, this element of the proposal would complement the host property and would be compatible with the established character of the area.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore complies with Polices 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.

The existing outlook from the rear first floor windows of Nos 57 and 61 is primarily across their rear gardens with only limited views towards the rear garden of the appeal property. The outlook from their ground floor rear windows and rear gardens towards the appeal site is partly restricted at ground floor level by boundary fences and planting.

The proposed rear extension would not significantly alter the outlook from the rear Commented [LM2]: Separate point so move it to a separate paragraph windows at either property, given the retained separation distance to the shared boundaries and the presence of a single storey extension at No 57. While the extension would be visible from parts of the rear gardens, this would continue to be filtered by the existing boundary features and, due to its limited scale and the intervening distance, would not appear overbearing. Accordingly, the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 57 and 61 in terms of outlook.

The proposal would result in some additional shadowing to the rear of No 61 during the afternoon, but due to proposed flat roof design and the separation distance the impact of this would be limited and for a short duration. It would result in some additional shadowing to the rear of No 57 during the morning and early afternoon. However, due to the flat roof design, the existing single storey rear extension at No 57 and the separation distance, any reduction in light would be minimal. Consequently, any reduction in light would be limited and would not be sufficient to harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 57 and 61. Commented [LM3]: Amenity? Or living conditions?

The existing first floor rear windows of the appeal property already provide some views into the rear gardens of Nos 57 and 61, although these are limited by established planting along both boundaries. The rear window of the proposed extension would afford similar views. As such, any overlooking would remain indirect and filtered and would not result in a harmful reduction in privacy for the occupiers of Nos 57 and 61.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of 57 and [address] with regard to outlook, light or privacy. The proposal therefore complies with Policy 37 of the Local Plan and Policy D3 of the London Plan which together require proposals to deliver appropriate outlook and respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers including privacy and sunlight.

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 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.