None

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 June 2025 by V Simpson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 July 2025 Section 78 Appeal Ref: 6000191 Proposal: Ground floor side and rear wrap around extension with glazed side return, rooflight and glazed sliding doors at 117 Venner Road, Sydenham, Bromley, London SE26 5HU. Application Ref: DC/24/04580/FULL6 Decision – allowed and planning permission granted. Preliminary matters 1. The scheme subject of the planning application is not substantially different from the development that has subsequently been undertaken on the site. Nevertheless, all interested and potentially interested parties have not had the opportunity to comment on the as-built scheme. Therefore, and because consultation is an important part of the planning system, it would be procedurally unfair to determine the appeal based on the as-built extension. Moreover, the Procedural Guide: planning appeals – England, advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. 2. For these reasons, this appeal proceeds on the basis that the scheme is that which was submitted to and determined by the Council. Furthermore, on the basis that the works that have been carried out do not fully accord with the application plans, this appeal is also dealt with as a scheme for a proposed development. 3. The Council has had the opportunity to comment upon the daylight and sunlight assessments submitted in support of the appeal. Reasons Issue – effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 115 Venner Road (no.115) with particular regard to outlook and sunlight 4. The house on the appeal site has a pre-existing, tall and fairly deep rear outrigger, which is very close to a similarly sized rear outrigger on the adjoining house at no. 115. That being the case, I do not doubt that the outlook from the ground-floor, rear- garden facing windows in the main part of the house at no. 115, and the appeal site facing ground-floor windows in the rear outrigger of this neighbouring property, is dominated by nearby built form. 5. Although the development would extend further back into the rear garden of the appeal site than the pre-existing rear outrigger, it would be substantially lower than this part of the dwelling. As such, and even though the scheme would bring built development a little closer to the ground floor windows in the rear of the house at 2 no. 115, it would not materially or harmfully reduce the overall quality of the outlook from these windows. 6. The development would lead to modest reductions in both the annual and winter probable sunlight hours to windows serving the kitchen and a living room in the house at no. 115. However, in the BRE daylight and sunlight assessment that relates to this scheme, it is confirmed that these reductions would not conflict with the associated BRE guidelines, and I have no reason to take another view. That being the case, the reduction in the level of sunlight to these main habitable room windows would be small enough to prevent associated harm being caused to the users of the rooms served by them. 7. For these reasons, the development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no.115 with particular regard to outlook and sunlight, and it accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. Conclusion 8. The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision otherwise. Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos; 000 rev P1, 001 rev P1, 220 rev P1, 210 rev P1 and 211 rev P1. Reason: Certainty V Simpson INSPECTOR