Appeal 6005410

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the frontage boundary walls, pillars, blockwork, fence panelling and gates. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to two side dormers in the eastern roof slope and a new rear outdoor building, and planning permission is granted for two side dormers in the eastern roof slope and a new rear outdoor building, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, ref. 25/03301/HPA subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, TS.24.260.F11 rev A, Existing & [name], TS.24.260.F09 rev A Existing and [name] (eastern elevations), TS.24.260.F08 rev A Existing and [name], TS.24.260.F12 Existing and Proposed Loft Layout Plan, TS.24.260.F06 rev [address] Elevations, TS.24.260.F04 [name] Plan, TS.24.260.F05 [address] Roof Plan, TS.24.260.F07 [address] (roof plan) Site Plan and TS.24.260.F03 rev [address] Site Plan.

The description of the development in the box heading above is taken directly from the planning application form but the “replacement” development for the fence is in fact boundary walls, pillars, blockwork, infill fence panelling and gates. Notwithstanding those descriptions of development, parts of the development applied for have already been completed, consequently I have decided to treat the appeal for determination purposes as if the submitted application plans represent the development for which the appellant seeks planning permission and no development has taken place. The submitted plans contain a proposal for a detached single storey outbuilding in the rear garden, two side dormer structures in the roof slope on the eastern side of the dwelling, and frontage boundary walls, with pillars, grey fence panels, a vehicular gate and a pedestrian gate.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the side dormers on the character and appearance and neighbour amenity of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and the effect of the frontage boundary walls, pillars, gates and fence panels on the character and appearance of the area, and on highway safety.

The appeal site is located on the southern side of [address] in the built-up area of Bromley and close to its centre. It is a two storey detached dwelling with off-road parking on the front apron and it has a rear garden. It has no.[address] to its west and no.74 to its east (which has its front door on the flank elevation facing the appeal site). These are detached dwellings.

Permission is sought for a single storey rear outbuilding which would be located close to the rear boundary of the rear garden which backs onto the rear gardens of nos 52 and [address]. It would be close to the boundary of the rear garden to [address]. The internal layout does not include either a bathroom, WC or kitchen. I agree with the Council that its scale and appearance would be appropriate to the rear garden and that it would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbours by reason of loss of privacy, loss of light, loss of outlook or otherwise. It would not be contrary to policies 6 or 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) or the London Plan (2021) or the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023).

Turning to the two side dormer structures, they would be situated close to one another and would measure approximately 1.3m and 2m in width with a height and depth of about 2.2m and 2.5m. Each would have a flat roof, and each would have a clear glazed window with the slimmer dormer having a narrower window than the other. The windows in both dormers would face the western roof slope of no.[address].

Both dormers serve a single bedroom at first floor level, to which I had access on my site visit (given that this part of the appeal scheme has been completed). Both dormers have a clear visual set down from the ridgeline of the host dwelling (which runs in a broadly north/south orientation to the road). Both dormers are also set up from the eaves of the roof by an appreciable visual margin. They are situated close together but not so close that the gap between them cannot be discerned from wider public views. They have also been clad in materials which match the main roof and so are read as a cohesive element of the dwelling, rather than an element that unduly draws the eye.

The neighbouring property to the east (no.74) has two rooflights in its western roof slope and, amongst other things, a large first floor flank window on its western flank. From what I saw on my site visit, the distance from no.74’s first floor flank window to the side dormers is generous and when coupled with no.74’s flank window being located in a lower position, the relationship would not give rise to unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupants of no.74. I note the Council agrees with that but considers that the perception of being overlooked would be unacceptable. I do not agree with that latter conclusion. I do not consider there would be a perception of being overlooked given the lower position of the flank window and the fact that the outlook from the side dormers is for the most part a direct view of the roof of no.74. There is no unacceptable overlooking of the room or rooms served by the rooflights at no.74, given the separation distances from the side dormers.

In relation to the impact of the side dormers on the streetscene, the context of the area is residential with there being a mix of two storey detached dwellings, three storey townhouses, flats and larger mansion blocks of three to four storeys in height. Side dormer structures are in existence in particular in locations close to the appeal site at, for example, no.74 and no78 [address]. The Council indicates that these latter two side dormers do not appear to serve bedrooms but serve stairwells and have obscured glazing. In this case, I do not consider that the clear glazed dormer windows which serve a bedroom at the appeal site are factors which lead me to conclude that they have a materially different impact on the character or appearance of the streetscene than the dormers at 74 and 78.

Turning to the character and appearance of the proposed front boundary treatment, permission is sought for blockwork pillars and a rendered/block work boundary wall which surrounds the frontage. The scheme includes a front apron entirely of hard surfacing with no soft landscaping. The pillars would be about 1.5m in height with a wall about 1m in height and above that is to be dark grey horizontal fencing. Gates are to be “[name]” and both the pedestrian one and the vehicular one are to be about 1.5m high. At the time of my site visit, some blockwork had been started to the front and side boundaries of the front apron. 11.The scale, materials, design and siting of the proposal would be seriously discordant with the appearance of the host dwelling and the wider streetscene. The boundary treatment fails to take any cues from the character and appearance of the frontages of the surrounding area where there are typically (though not exclusively) frontages with low walls, hedging, walls and hedging together, vegetation relieving the starkness of front hardstanding, and open frontages not overly obscured by dominant front or side boundary treatments. The proposal would result in a very harsh unattractive addition to the streetscene not in sympathy with it and doing positive harm to it.

In summary, on the issue of character and appearance in relation to the two side dormers, I conclude that there would be no unacceptable harm to character or appearance of the host dwelling or the wider streetscene and no conflict with local policy. There would be no unacceptable harm to neighbour amenity either. However, in relation to the issue of character and appearance of the proposed frontage boundary treatment, I conclude this would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to policy 37(a), (b) & (c) of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019), policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) and contrary to the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (July 2023).

[address] is part of the A222 and is a classified highway and forms part of the [address] Network as a [name]. Vehicular access gates should generally be set back a minimum of 4.5 to 6m from the highway boundary to ensure that vehicles can wait clear of the carriageway without causing obstruction or safety hazards to highway users. There is a public footway in front of the appeal property and a bus lane on [address] in the vicinity of the appeal site.

In accordance with visibility and highway safety requirements, any proposed boundary treatment such as walls adjacent to the public highway must not exceed 0.6m in height within the pedestrian visibility splay. Even though the appellant has not shown visibility splays on the submitted drawings, the front boundary treatment scheme proposed, given its height, would obstruct visibility for both drivers leaving the site and for pedestrians walking on the public footway. It is a well used, wide public footway and pedestrians using it must be safe. Notwithstanding what visibility was or was not possible prior to the appellant commencing boundary treatment works on site, the proposed scheme is not acceptable, and the imposition of planning conditions could not render it acceptable.

I conclude that the proposal would lead to a significantly adverse impact on highway and pedestrian safety and would be contrary to policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) and policy 32 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019).

I have considered third party representations but none lead me to refuse the side dormers or the proposed building in the rear garden. Boundary disputes are private law matters and not ones which I can treat as material considerations in this planning appeal.

I have concluded that a split decision is appropriate in this case because the side dormer and detached rear outbuilding elements of the development proposed as part of the appeal would clearly function separately from the front boundary treatment and are not physically linked or dependent on each other or on the front boundary treatment. I have attached a time limit in which to implement the scheme which, in effect, relates to the rear outbuilding. The plans listed in condition 2 are those which relate to the rear outbuilding and the two eastern side dormer structures. Both conditions are needed for the avoidance of doubt.

Having considered all representations made, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed frontage boundary treatment (blockwork, pillars, fence panels and gates). The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the two side dormer windows and rear outbuilding. [name].C.