Appeal 6009983

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a single-storey detached annex in the rear garden for ancillary residential use at [site address] , Beckenham, Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/05645/FPA, subject to the following conditions:

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: SD-01 and SD-02.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the window to the WC shall be obscure glazed to a minimum Pilkington glass privacy level 3 and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor shall be capable of being opened and shall permanently be retained as such.

The main issues are the effect on: • The character and appearance of the local area; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

The appeal dwelling is a two storey detached house with a palisaded front garden mainly given over to off street parking. It has been the subject of recent side and rear extensions. It has a generously proportioned rear garden, to the rear of which are two existing outbuildings. The garden backs onto sports fields associated with [name].

The appeal dwelling is located in a street and local area made up of similarly scaled detached and semi-detached properties and is within the boundary of the [address], Copers Cope Area of Special Residential Character (ARSC). This is recognised in the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (the Local Plan) as an area that forms a distinctive and coherent mostly Victorian and Edwardian enclave which provides a sense of entry into the residential part of [address]. The appeal dwelling forms part of a subgroup within the area that the Local Plan identifies as unremarkable interwar/postwar properties, included in the ASRC to create a defensive boundary and encourage future development to reflect and enhance the positive features of the ARSC. As such, the appeal dwelling could at best be described as making a neutral contribution to the special character and appearance of the ASRC.

The proposed annexe would measure 9.8 metres by 5.7 metres and would have its narrow end facing towards the main house. The proposed annex would replace one of the two existing outbuildings and would be positioned towards the rear of the garden 3 metres from the rear boundary fence and 1.2 metres from the boundary with the neighbouring property at [address] (No.82).

The proposed annexe would be clad in timber effect cladding and have a larger footprint than the existing outbuilding with shallow pitched roof that it would replace. It would have a hipped roof form in grey roof tile with a ridge height of approximately 4 metres and would be slightly taller than the existing outbuilding it would replace. However, within the context of the generously proportioned garden, the increase in size and height would not result in the proposal as appearing as a dominating feature within the garden, even with the slightly rising topography of the garden. Rather, it would appear as a secondary and subordinate structure within the local garden scene, where other similarly scaled outbuildings are apparent to the rear of the large gardens of neighbouring properties.

As such, the proposal would reflect the local garden scene as an outbuilding within a garden setting and as an annexe ancillary to the main house and would preserve the existing special qualities of the ARSC and would not constitute inappropriate backland or garden land development. For these reasons, the proposal would, accord with the [name] Planning Document (2023) and with Policy 3 of the Local Plan in these regards.

The proposed annexe would replace an existing outbuilding and would be larger and taller than the existing outbuilding and positioned 1.2 metres from the shared boundary with No.82. This would result in the upper part and hipped roof of the proposal being visible from the garden of this neighbouring property. From my site visit it is apparent that this would be similar to the views afforded from the garden of the appeal property of outbuildings in neighbouring gardens at No.82 and [address] (No.86). From the rear rooms of No.82, the proposal would be a significant distance from this house and would appear as an outbuilding within the local garden scene from this property and other neighbouring properties that overlook the garden. As such, I do not find that the proposal would result in any significant loss of outlook from No.82 or other properties and, given the height of the proposal and distance to the boundary fence to No.82, any loss of daylight or sunlight of any significance to the extent that it would be detrimental to the living conditions of its occupiers.

The proposal would have larger windows in the elevations facing towards the main house and into the middle of the garden towards the boundary with No.86. Given the distances to the neighbouring properties these would not result in any direct overlooking to any greater extent than for a person standing in the garden of the appeal property and would be of a level to be expected in a developed residential area of this type. For privacy, the finish to the small window to a WC on the elevation facing the boundary with No.82 can be conditioned on an approval as being obscured glazing. As such, the proposal would not result in a degree of overlooking that would lead to any significant loss of privacy to neighbouring residential occupiers.

Concerns have been raised with regard to the family use of the proposed annexe as set out by the appellant, however, this is not a determining matter in the acceptability of the proposal as an annexe in this instance. Concerns have been raised with regard to the future sale and or subdivision of the appeal property with regard to the appeal proposal. This does not form part of the appeal proposal, and the sale of property is not a planning matter for me to consider as part of this appeal.

Concerns have also been raised with regard to the future extension of both the main house and the proposed annexe, and it is suggested that a condition limiting permitted development rights or precluding future applications for extensions should be attached to an approval. However, I find that there are no exceptional reasons to attach the suggested conditions limiting permitted development rights. Further, as planning applications are considered on their own individual merits, which is a main tenet of the planning system, there are no exceptional reasons to restrict such future applications. Concerns have been raised regarding the setting of precedent should the appeal be allowed, however, as I have already identified, planning proposals are considered on their own individual merits, as I have done in this instance.

It has been proposed that a condition should be attached to any approval that requires an increase in height of the boundary fence with No.82 and additional planting to screen views. Given my findings with regard to outlook and overlooking set out above, such a condition would not be necessary and, as such, would not meet the requirements for conditions set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance or the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area or to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such, it would accord with Policies 7, 37 and 44 of the Local Plan and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Collectively these seek development that, amongst other matters, is of a high quality, as an annexe it cannot be severed from the main dwelling house and access is through that dwelling, integrates with the local area, respecting the special and distinctive qualities of Areas of Special Residential Character and does not undermine the quality of life of neighbouring residential occupiers.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the council should I be minded to allow the appeal. I have not included the suggested condition requiring the use of materials, as this would duplicate the standard plans condition and the terms of the permission, where these materials are detailed and, therefore, a condition would be unnecessary. I have not attached the condition relating to the use of the proposal solely as an annexe of the main house, as this already forms the description of the development and the creation of a separate dwelling would require a separate planning permission; such a condition would therefore be unnecessary. I have not included all the windows in the proposal within a condition requiring the use of opaque glazing, as I find that such glazing, to all but the small window to the WC of the proposal to protect privacy, would be unnecessary.

Along with the standard condition relating to the timing of implementation, I have attached conditions to ensure design quality which require compliance with the approved drawings. To protect privacy, I have imposed a condition relating to the glazing of the WC window in the annexe.

The appeal is allowed.