Part one/two storey rear extension with elevational alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 March 2025 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd April 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000105 25 Holmcroft Way, Bromley BR2 8AD  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Arshdeep Bhakar against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref is DC/24/03162/FULL6.  The development proposed is part one/two storey rear extension with elevational alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part one/two storey rear extension with elevational alterations at 25 Holmcroft Way, Bromley BR2 8AD in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/24/03162/FULL6, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 24-0887 Rev:05 Page D01 Block Plans and Location Plan; 24-0887 Rev:05 Page D03 Proposed Plans; 24-0887 Rev:05 Page D05 Proposed Elevations, all dated 15 August 2024. 3) Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed first floor window in the side elevation serving the shower room shall be obscure glazed to a minimum of Pilkington privacy Level 3 and shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. Thereafter, the window shall be permanently retained as such. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the description of development set out on the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately describes the proposal shown on the submitted plans, than the one provided on the planning application form. 3. At the time of my visit, the construction of a single storey and two storey extension was underway. From the evidence before me, I understand that the Council determined that prior approval was not required for a single storey extension projecting six metres out from the rear elevation of the property.1 Subsequently a 1 LPA Ref: DC/24/00416/HHPA dated 11 March 2024 Appeal Decision 6000105 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Certificate of Lawfulness for a proposed single storey extension2 determined that such an extension would constitute permitted development by virtue of Class A Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO3. Planning permission was also granted4 for a single storey extension projecting five metres out from the rear wall of the property with a first floor extension projecting four metres out from the rear elevation. The current appeal relates to a single storey extension projecting six metres out with a first floor extension projecting four metres out. As I cannot be sure which, if any, of these proposals was the one being constructed on site, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the plans before me. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on:  The character and appearance of the area; and  The living conditions of neighbouring occupiers by virtue of overshadowing and loss of light. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The host dwelling is the end property in a short terrace, located in a residential area. The proposed development would be at the rear of the dwelling which backs on to other residential property. It would be constructed in materials which match the existing dwelling and incorporate a hipped roof. Set down from the main ridge, the extension would appear subservient to the host dwelling. Whilst the side elevation of the extension would be visible from the street in the gap between the host dwelling and the neighbouring property, 27 Holmcroft Way, these would be glimpsed views. It would have a neutral impact on the overall character and appearance of the street scene. 6. For these reasons, there would be no conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan, adopted January 2019 (LP) which require that developments, including residential extensions, respect the scale and form of the host dwelling and are compatible with, and complement, development in the surrounding area. Living conditions 7. Although no formal assessment has been submitted relating to the effect of the extensions on sunlight or daylight to the neighbouring properties, I was able to see the relationship between the properties at my site visit. 8. The flat roof single storey part of the proposal would extend six metres out from the rear wall of the existing dwelling. Given the separation distance between the appeal site and 27 Holmcroft Way, there would be no adverse effect on the living conditions of those occupiers. The attached neighbouring property, 23 Holmcroft Way, has a flat roof single storey extension on the rear. Whilst the proposed single storey extension would project beyond the extent of this, its overall height and projection would not result in any overshadowing or loss of light to the occupiers of the adjacent property. 2 LPA Ref: DC/24/01034/PLUD dated 23 April 2024 3 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) 4 LPA Ref: 24/00417/FULL6 Ground floor and part first floor rear extension with elevational alterations dated 27 March 2024 Appeal Decision 6000105 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 9. The first floor extension would be on the eastern most side of the rear elevation of the host dwelling. Accordingly, it would be set away from number 23 and would not cause overshadowing or an unacceptable loss of light to the rear windows of that property. It would be on the part of the property closest to number 27. However, the host dwelling and number 27 are both set away from the boundary. The extension would be on the north elevation and incorporate a hipped roof. These factors together with the extent of separation between the properties means that an unacceptable level of overshadowing or loss of light would not occur. 10. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Policy 37 of the LP which requires that development proposals respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by ensuring they are not harmed by, amongst other things, overshadowing. Other Matters 11. The construction works for the proposed extension would, no doubt, cause a degree of disturbance and disruption. Whilst I have some sympathy for existing occupiers in these circumstances, the works would be time limited and it would not be reasonable to withhold consent on this basis alone. 12. There is no evidence before me that noise from the property once the works are complete would be in excess of that from any other residential property or that the proposed works would result in additional on-street parking. Any subdivision of the property would require planning permission. 13. Concern has been expressed that the works would devalue nearby properties. However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. As such the protection of purely private interests is not a consideration I have given any weight to5. 14. Any subsequent proposals for extensions and works to other properties in the area should be considered on their own merits. 15. The quality of construction work carried out on site is covered by other legislation such as the Building Regulations. Any implications for sewerage and water supply infrastructure is the responsibility of the Statutory Undertaker who I understand from the Council’s committee report, were consulted as part of the planning application process. 16. Interested parties have expressed concerns about the proposal being overbearing and resulting in overlooking. For the reasons set out above, including the location and design of the extension and the degree of separation with neighbouring properties, the extensions would not have overbearing impact on neighbouring occupiers. A degree of mutual overlooking from upstairs windows is a common feature in this residential area. The proposed extension would not lead to further overlooking to a harmful extent. Conditions 17. In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans, which also detail the proposed materials, in the interests of certainty. For this reason, it is not necessary to have an additional condition requiring that the materials used are those shown on the approved plans. A condition requiring that 5 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 21b-008-20140306 of the Planning Practice Guidance Appeal Decision 6000105 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 the first floor window on the side elevation is obscure glazed is necessary in the interests of protecting residential amenity. Conclusion 18. The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR