Appeal 6007009

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council to the London Borough of Bromley and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene and the area. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring property, with particular regard to privacy and associated visual impact.

[address] includes a diverse range of single and two storey detached dwellings that include a variety of hipped and gable roof front projections and dormer windows, which are more generally set below the main ridge lines of the host dwellings. The dwellings occupy large plots and are set back from the street scene behind generous sized front gardens. This together with the staggered building lines; mature landscaping within and around the plots; grass verges, absence of pavements and street lights and sloping topography contributes to the spacious, informal and verdant character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is located within a small row of traditionally designed bungalows that occupy a prominent elevated position behind deep front gardens that rise away from the road. They have broken and staggered building lines which follow the alignment of the road and some include front projections which sit below the main ridge lines. This includes the appeal dwelling which has projecting front bay windows and an integral garage which projects forward of the dwelling. This garage has a hipped roof which sits well below the main ridge line of the dwelling. The dwelling sits forward of the dwelling at [address] (No.18) and behind the front elevation of [address] (No.14).

Together and amongst other things policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP) and policy D4 of the London Plan promote a design-led approach which optimises the development potential of sites. New development should be of a high standard of design and layout and be sympathetic to local character. It should respect or complement the scale, proportion, form, layout and materials of host dwelling and the surrounding area. Space or gaps between buildings should be respected or maintained where they contribute to the character of the area. Dormer windows should be of a size appropriate to the roof-scape and sited away from prominent roof-slopes unless they are a feature of the area. Policy D1 of the London Plan has similar objectives.

Paragraphs 135 & 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) similarly states that proposals should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change. Proposals should create places with a high standard of amenity and development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design.

With the proposal the modest height of the host dwelling would be retained and the front facing projections and dormer windows would sit slightly below its main ridge line. Despite this due to their size and form, together with the elevated position of the dwelling, the proposed front projections and dormer windows would appear taller than and would overwhelm the roof of the host dwelling. As a result of its combined depth and high eaves height the front extension alongside No.18 would appear stark, unbalanced and out of keeping with the host dwelling. Due to the height of their flat roofs and glazing the proposed dormer windows would appear top heavy alongside the projecting gables. The high eaves line and tall flank wall of the rear extension alongside No.18 would add to the discordant appearance of the resultant dwelling when viewed from the street scene. Overall, the resultant roof would appear top heavy, contrived and cramped.

As pointed out by the appellant there are numerous dwellings within [address] with large projecting gables and/or dormer windows with expansive areas of glazing. Typically, they are set noticeable below the ridge line; have lower eaves lines, and the roof slopes do not appear cluttered or top heavy. Also, the majority of the dwellings with large front gable features do not occupy positions as elevated as the appeal dwelling. Rather than set a precedent they serve to highlight the need to assess the impact of each proposal on its individual merits.

Conversely, although the proposed rear extensions would not respect or reflect the host dwelling, from the rear garden the resultant rear elevation would be balanced and would have the appearance of a contemporary dwelling. Due to the existing staggered rear building lines, the proposed two storey elements of the proposal would relate appropriately to the rear building lines of the adjacent dwellings. Although the proposed external materials would have a contemporary appearance, they are used elsewhere within [address] and have blended into the local area.

However, this would not outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposed front roof additions and the side elevation of the rear projecting gable extension. Further this harm would also outweigh the benefits for the appellant and their family that would result from the proposed additional and updated accommodation. This harm is not something that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions. Further, it is noted that these elements of the proposal fall outside the current permitted development tolerances.

I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene and the area. Accordingly, it conflicts with [name] 6 & 37, policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan and paragraph 135 of the Framework.

The appellant has referred to a number of roof extensions in the immediate area which include dormer windows with various height windows. The full height windows which facilitate wider and more open views into the rear gardens are typically sited away from the side boundaries of the dwellings concerned. [name] acknowledge that some of the examples include full height windows close to the side boundaries, no details have been provided regarding garden layouts, ground levels or the nature of the planting along the adjacent boundaries. As indicated in paragraph 9 of this statement they serve to highlight the need to assess each proposal on its individual merits.

The proposed first floor rear window adjacent to the boundary with No.14 would serve a sitting area within the master bedroom. It would be sited close to the rear of a covered area to the side of No.14 and a section of the boundary where planting is modest both in height and density. As a consequence, there would be inter-looking between this window and the sitting out area to the rear of No.14. It would result in a material loss of privacy and an overbearing impact for the occupiers of No.14. Due to the juxtaposition between the proposed window and the rear patio and garden at No.14 this is not something that could be fully addressed through the use of privacy fins.

This would be contrary to BLP policy 37. Amongst other things it seeks to ensure that proposals respect and not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent properties. BLP policies 4 & 6 and policy D4 of the London Plan are more general in their wording and deal with the overall impact of proposals.

The proposed central windows would be sited further away from the boundary with No.14 and their main outlook would be over the host rear garden. The rear gardens of No.14 & No.18 would be effectively screened by more dense planting along the side boundaries, which rise away from the dwellings. This planting would similarly help screen the windows from No.14 and No.18. Accordingly, these windows would not have an overbearing impact on the outlook from the adjacent properties.

The proposed large window within the rear gable roof extension would facilitate oblique views towards the side passageway and door at No.18. Having regard to the rising ground levels, views into the rear garden at No.18 would be partially obscured by a combination of the rear extension at No.18 and the mature planting along the boundary between the two properties. Whilst the density of this planting could reduce during the winter months, that is a time when residents are less likely to be sitting in their gardens. Accordingly, the loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.18 would be modest. Further it could be partially mitigated through the introduction of privacy fins.

The only proposed first floor window in the side elevations would serve a bathroom and would face towards the roof and side garage of the dwelling at No.18. Whilst there would be oblique views towards the side door and bathroom window at No.18, this could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of a condition which requires the window to be obscure glazed and to have restricted opening.

Regarding loss of daylight/sunlight the submitted drawings show that the 450 horizontal line is already breached in relation to the rear facing window in the adjacent ground floor bedroom at No.14. This breach would be greater with the proposal although it is noted that the bedroom also benefits from a rooflight. Whilst vertical 450 lines are not shown on the drawings, from the submitted drawings and my appeal site visit it appears that the proposed hip to gable could result in a slight loss of light through the rooflight. Notwithstanding this, the room affected is not a main living room and benefits from having a rooflight. Accordingly, although the loss of light within this room would marginally add to the overbearing impact of the proposal, in itself this would not amount to a reason for dismissing this appeal.

The submitted drawings also indicates that the horizontal 450 line would not be breached in relation to all other rear facing windows at No.14. Similarly, a horizontal 450 line would not be breached in relation to the rear facing windows at No.18. Although the side door and window would experience overshadowing and loss of light, it is understood that the side window serves a bathroom and the door serves the kitchen which has a large window that faces the rear garden. The relationship would be typical of many housing developments.

For these reasons I conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.14 due to loss of privacy and associated overbearing impact. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with BLP Policy 37 and the broader design principles set out in [name] 4 and 6 and policy D4 of The London Plan.

Whilst reference has been made to the Party Wall Act, this is a matter that falls outside the scope of this appeal and would need to be dealt with under other legislation.

Finally, whilst I note the concerns expressed regarding the handling of the application by the council, this is not material to my consideration of the planning merits of the proposal. Those relating to the appellants application for costs are dealt with in a separate decision.

Having regard to the conclusions on both main issues and all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.