Appeal 6006236

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, which seeks retrospective planning permission.

The main issues are the effect of the development on a) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with specific regard to privacy; and b) the character and appearance of the area.

Wooden decking has been constructed over a flat roofed section of the rear outrigger of the dwelling. Access is gained from a dormer window within the roof. A terrace area has been created, containing outdoor seating and associated paraphernalia, enclosed by a timber-like plastic slatted balustrade. Owing to its elevated position, the terrace allows users to have clear views via direct lines of sight into neighbouring rear gardens. This leads to both an actual loss of privacy and a perceived one by virtue of the intrusive presence of people standing/sitting out. This unacceptably diminishes the quality of these spaces, and the enjoyment of them, for neighbours.

While the existing screen provides a degree of mitigation, it is of limited height and is partially open. It does not therefore sufficiently prevent views into neighbouring gardens. Although the appellant has suggested that a condition requiring a taller or more obscure form of screening could address these concerns, I am not persuaded that such measures would overcome the harm identified. Even with additional screening, due to the elevated and open nature of the terrace it is still likely to result in neighbouring occupiers remaining acutely aware of activity at this level, giving rise to an uncomfortable perception of overlooking. Moreover, I cannot be certain that increasing the height or opacity of the enclosure would not itself give rise to adverse effects in regard to other matters.

Number 1 has a dormer window with a Juliet-style balcony. I recognise that this provides some opportunity for views into neighbouring gardens. However, they would be at a more oblique angle. There is a clear material difference between overlooking from a domestic window associated with internal accommodation, and that arising from an elevated external terrace specifically intended for extended periods of occupation/use. The latter provides a significantly greater opportunity for direct and sustained overlooking.

For these reasons, the development has an unacceptably adverse effect on the privacy enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring dwellings, to the detriment of the quality of their living conditions. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policies 6 and 37 of the Local Plan, London Borough of Bromley, Planning Division, 2019 (LP) and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure development respects the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings by ensuring a satisfactory level of living conditions.

The appeal property is a two‐storey mid‐terrace dwelling with a rear dormer. The surrounding area comprises similar terraced properties with modest flat and pitch‐roofed outriggers that appear subservient to the main buildings. While some properties have benefitted from roof alterations, the rear roofscape remains relatively consistent and uncluttered.

The proposal, by reason of its elevated position and prominent balustrading, introduces a discordant and conspicuous feature that appears at odds with the established character of the rear elevations. While the terrace is not prominent from public vantage points it is clearly visible from the rear gardens and upper floors of neighbouring dwellings. Visibility mostly from these private viewpoints does not diminish the harm, particularly in a context where the rear roofscape is currently free from terrace development such as this. In this context, the development appears as an isolated and visually intrusive addition, which unacceptably disrupts the cohesive appearance of the rear outrigger roof forms.

Consequently, the proposal results in undue harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Policies 6 and 37 of the LP. Amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development is of a high standard of design that respects the scale, form, materials and roofscape of surrounding buildings and complements its context.

I appreciate that the terrace has been created to provide a quiet space for a family member suffering from ill-health. It is however unclear whether other, less harmful, solutions have been explored. There is no evidence to suggest why then these would not be sufficient to accommodate these needs. The evidence also sets out that the terrace is to provide additional amenity space for the wider family. Beyond the intended private garden space use of the terrace and how it would provide such for the occupiers of the property as a whole, it would be beyond the scope of any condition to restrict its use to specific individuals. With this and the above in mind, I would be unable to attach more than moderate weight to this matter.

For the reasons given above, the scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not attract sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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