Appeal 6006515

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of conservatory, a two-storey rear extension and elevational alterations at [site address] , Orpington, Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/05632/HPA, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Location Plan ([name]-14536011v1) and [name] B212562-3000 ([name]) and B212562-3100 ([name]).

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first-floor window on the side elevation referred to as “[name]”, as shown on [name] B212562-3100 ([name]), has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that 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. Once the window is installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out in the banner heading, which is taken from the application form, the formal decision has taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as it is a more precise description of the proposal. The appellant has also adopted the same description within their appeal statement and appeal form, I am satisfied that neither party is prejudiced by this course of action.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] and [address], with regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached house within a residential cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac contains predominantly two-storey dwellings of broadly similar design and materials. However, there is no consistent building line or plot rhythm, and many properties have been extended or altered with additions of varying scale, form and siting. Overall, notwithstanding some common design features, there is no uniform built form within the cul-de-sac.

The proposed 2-storey rear extension would project approximately 3m from the existing rear elevation. It would have a hipped roof with a maximum height of approximately 7m, falling towards the eaves of approximately 5m on all three sides.

The proposed extension would alter the relationship between the appeal property and No 9. However, the hipped roof form would reduce the apparent bulk of the extension when experienced from No 9. Moreover, the extension would project only approximately 3m, leaving more than 9m of the shared boundary unobstructed. In that context, the neighbouring occupiers would continue to experience a relatively open aspect to the rear, and the change in outlook would therefore be modest. In addition, mature planting along the shared boundary, particularly a tall tree within the garden of No 9, would provide some screening and further lessen the effect on outlook. While the proposed extension would be visible, it would not be of such a scale or proximity as to result in an unacceptable impact on the outlook of the occupiers of No 9.

With around 1m between the side of the extension and the shared boundary, the extension would be approximately 12m from the rear elevation of No 7. Given this separation, the proposal would not result in a material loss of outlook for the occupiers of No 7.

Overall, the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] and [address], with particular regard to outlook. It would therefore comply with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (the LP), which, amongst other considerations, expects development proposals to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. It would also accord with Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) which, amongst other matters, requires development proposals to provide an appropriate level of outlook.

Policy 6 of the LP is also cited in the reason for refusal. That policy relates primarily to the design and appearance of residential extensions and does not relate to this main issue. Moreover, the Council’s officer’s report concludes that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host building or the surrounding area. Therefore, LP Policy 6 has not been determinative of my consideration of this main issue.

The Council raises no objection on the proposal’s effect on the daylight and sunlight received by neighbouring properties. Given the separation between the proposed development and the neighbouring windows, the orientation and the modest scale of the proposed extension, I have no reason to reach a different conclusion from the Council’s assessment on these matters.

The proposal includes a new first-floor bathroom window on the flank wall. The Council indicates that, had it been minded to approve the application, it would have imposed a condition requiring that window to be obscure-glazed and top-opening only. I am satisfied that a condition in those terms would adequately protect the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. As the remaining proposed rear-facing windows would be positioned in the same orientation as the existing ones, no additional overlooking would be expected.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and relevant statute.

Conditions specifying the time for commencement and compliance with the approved plans have been imposed. These are necessary for certainty. A further condition requiring external materials to match the existing has been imposed. This is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

A condition requiring the new first-floor window on the side elevation to be obscure-glazed and non-opening below 1.7m has been imposed in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

With respect to the representation from the RSPB Bromley Local Group, given the minor scale of the proposal and the fact that the appeal site is within an established residential area, there is no substantive evidence before me to conclude that the proposed development would be unacceptable in terms of biodiversity without the imposition of a condition requiring the installation of integral swift nest bricks or externally fitted swift nest boxes. Accordingly, such a condition would be unnecessary.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.