Single storey side and part single part two storey rear extensions with elevational alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 March 2025 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 April 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000077 122 Lovibonds Avenue, Orpington, Bromley BR6 8EN • 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 Danielle Foord against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/03938/FULL6. • The development proposed is single storey side and part single part two storey rear extensions with elevational alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon: 1) The living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, in terms of outlook and privacy, and 2) The character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area. Reasons Living conditions 3. The appeal dwelling stands on a large plot, between two similarly sized dwellings. They are staggered, so that no. 124 to the northeast is set back from the appeal dwelling, whereas no. 120 to the southwest is set forward. 4. The side elevation of no. 124 is close to the shared boundary. It includes two ground floor windows that are clear glazed and serve a living room. Owing to the set back, these side windows face across the open area at the rear of the appeal dwelling. They face southwest and would therefore provide a good level of daylight and sunlight to the living room. Additionally, they provide a pleasant outlook over an open aspect of the appeal site. 5. The proposal would significantly alter this arrangement. The appeal dwelling would be extended out to the side so that it is closer to the side boundary. As a result, the outlook from the side windows of no. 124 would be significantly eroded. When the first floor portion of the extension is also taken into account, the impact on daylight and direct sunlight reaching these windows would also be significantly harmed. An additional impact would arise from the position of the side door; those using this door would have a direct view into the living room of the neighbouring dwelling, Appeal Decision 6000077 2 which would have a harmful impact on privacy. Consequently, the proposal would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of this dwelling, in terms of outlook and privacy. 6. The impact on the occupiers of this dwelling was not mentioned specifically by the Council in its refusal reason. However, the detailed objections from the occupiers of this dwelling explain the situation, and I am not satisfied that it is reasonable for the appellant to conclude that a lack of impact on the living conditions of the occupants of no. 124 is common ground between the main parties; particularly as the Council’s officer report refers to a harmful visual impact on the surrounding neighbouring properties, suggesting an impact in both directions. 7. The appeal dwelling is closer to the side boundary with no. 120. From this perspective, the side of the existing dwelling is already highly prominent when viewed from the neighbouring plot owing to the staggered arrangement. The dwelling would be extended in line with a sizeable two storey extension. Whilst this would have little impact on daylight or direct sunlight levels for the occupants of no. 120, the extensions would have an overwhelming scale and would dominate the garden area at the rear. Users of this area would feel hemmed in and left with a restricted outlook. The change in level between the dwellings is minimal, and not enough to meaningfully lessen the impact. Thus, the proposal would also have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of this dwelling, in terms of outlook. 8. In summary, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwellings to either side of the appeal dwelling. It would be contrary to Policy 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP), insofar as it seeks to ensure that development proposals respect the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. Character and appearance 9. The area is characterised by large detached dwellings that sit in large plots and are set back from the edge of the tree lined street. The existing dwelling has a prominent mock timber frame to its front and side elevations. Similar details, although used more sparingly, are found in the dwellings to either side. 10. The proposal would see this character removed from the existing dwelling and replaced with plainer detailing. However, given that this is an unusual finish in the context of the wider area, what is proposed would not look out of place or be harmful and the overall form of the dwelling would be retained. 11. At the rear the dwelling would be substantially extended and roughly doubled in size. The extension would utilise three distinct forms at the rear at first floor; two gables to each side and a pitched central portion, with a roof slope that would be parallel to the existing roof and would give the impression of a double pile arrangement with an internal valley. All three elements would be set down below the height of the existing roof and set in from the existing gables. These characteristics would successfully break up the massing of the proposal and the varied widths of the rearward gables would give them an informality that is appropriate for a secondary rear extension. Appeal Decision 6000077 3 12. Furthermore, the dwelling is not prominent to view at the rear. The proposed extensions would therefore only be experienced by the users of the nearby rear gardens and would not impact the area’s wider character and appearance. 13. In summary, whilst the appearance of the dwelling would be significantly changed by the proposal, its character and appearance and that of the area would not be harmed. It would thus accord with Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021, and Policies 6 and 37 of the BLP, which seek to ensure that development proposals respond positively to local distinctiveness, are of a high quality, with a scale, form, and materials that respects or compliments the host dwelling and are compatible with the surroundings. Conclusion 14. Although I have found that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the existing dwelling or the area, it would not secure an enhancement, and this matter cannot therefore outweigh my findings on the first main issue. Accordingly, for the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed. A Tucker INSPECTOR