(1) demolition of front garage, (2) formation of front bay window, (3) first floor rear extension and (4) roof alteration with rear dormers

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 January 2018 by P W Clark MA MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/17/3188142 17 New Street Hill, Bromley BR1 5AU  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Ms Bina Patel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/03667/FULL6, dated 4 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 September 2017.  The development proposed is (1) demolition of front garage, (2) formation of front bay window, (3) first floor rear extension and (4) roof alteration with rear dormers. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. The sole main issue in this appeal is the effect of the width of the first floor rear extension on the living conditions of residents of number 15 New Street Hill. Planning permission has previously been given for similar proposals for other elements of the appeal scheme. 3. Numbers 17-29 (odd) New Street Hill comprise a group of detached, hipped roofed houses sited en echelon in relation to each other and to number 15 New Street Hill. The latter is one of a pair of gable-ended semi-detached houses. The echelon arrangement means that one flank of each house is exposed to its neighbour’s outlook at the front and the other flank is equally exposed to view in the neighbour’s outlook at the rear. 4. Number 17 has been previously extended. As it now stands, its two storey flank wall extends a considerable distance rearward beyond the line of the original main wall of number 15. The permissions which exist would not extend this further at first floor level but would limit a rearward first floor extension to about one third of the width of the property furthest away from number 15. By contrast, the proposal would be for a full width extension which would increase the length of two storey wall exposed in the outlook from the main rear wall of number 15 by about 4m. The exposed flank of number 17 would then extend for just less than half the length of number 15’s rear garden. 5. Number 15 has a part-width ground floor rear extension from which a 45º outlook would not include the extension proposed. But it also has a recent side extension close to number 17 which, at ground floor level, appears to include a window from which the outlook would be dominated by the full extent of the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3188142 2 extension proposed. Likewise, from upper floor windows, the full extent of the flank of the extension proposed would dominate the outlook. Although, as a result of the existing layout of this part of New Street Hill, extensive outlook onto flank walls appears to be generally accepted in the area, the extent of flank wall included in this proposal, and the proportion of the rear garden of number 15 which it would enclose, would be excessive and would result in an unacceptable outlook from the upper floor rear windows of number 15. 6. The proposed extension would include two new first floor windows and two new second floor dormer windows in the flank elevation facing over the rear garden of number 15. One of these on each floor would light a staircase, the other a room labelled bathroom but none is shown to be obscurely glazed. Although this could be required by condition, the direction in which the windows would face, together with the full-height size of the windows the dormers would house, would give residents of number 15 an oppressive sense of being overlooked. 7. I conclude that the effects of the proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions in terms of both outlook and a sense of privacy for residents of number 15 New Street Hill. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy BE1 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan adopted in July 2006. Amongst other matters, this requires development to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings. Policy H8 is referred to in the reason for refusal but that is concerned with the character and appearance of the area, which is not at issue in this appeal. P. W. Clark Inspector