Appeal 3276634

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached, two-storey house with a hipped roof. The proposed extensions would represent considerable alterations to the house at ground, first floor and roof levels.

UDP Policy1 ENV39 seeks to protect and enhance the quality of the built environment by ensuring, among other things, that alterations and extensions are of a high standard of design and compatible with the surrounding area and do not adversely affect the street scene. UDP Policy H9 also requires extensions and alterations to satisfy a set of criteria, including, design and external appearance that is compatible with the character of the existing building and those adjacent to it.

The decision notice refers to Core Strategy2 Policy CS02 which relates to the Bexleyheath geographical region of the Borough. Policy CS06 is referred to in the Council’s report which refers to the Sidcup geographical region. It seems likely that the reference to CS02 is an error but this has not been clarified. I 1 Bexley Council Unitary Development Plan, Adopted 28 April 2004 (UDP). Unitary Development Plan Design and Development Control Guidelines. 2 London Borough of Bexley Local Development Framework Development Plan Document Bexley Core Strategy, Adopted 22 February 2012. have not taken the [name] policies into account given the lack of clarity and in any event the issue I have identified is addressed in the UDP policies referred to.

Whilst individual elements of the proposal may be acceptable, the overall scheme proposed would be cumbersome and excessive. The roof alterations, in particular would be totally out of keeping with the design of the house, its inappropriateness highlighted by No [site address] being one half of a semi-detached pair of houses. The proposal fails to respect the design of the existing house or its location and as such would conflict with the aims of policies ENV39 and H9.

The appellant refers to an approved Lawful Development Certificate for alterations to the roof incorporating a hip to gable alteration, a rear dormer with Juliet balcony and rooflights. The applicant also refers to a planning approval for a part one / part two-storey front side and rear extension3. Although full details of these are not submitted, the appellant has included rear elevations for both proposals.

I have considered the impact of the alterations that have previously been approved by the Council and weighed these against the proposal. Whilst the appellant sees the proposal as one amalgamating the previous approvals, plus adding more roof space, the cumulative effect would create a dwelling that would appear incongruous in the street scene, totally at odds with the character of the area and representative of poorly designed additions to a traditional styled semi-detached house.

I have taken into account the National Planning Policy Framework4 in terms of housing provision and sustainable development but the Framework also encourages high quality design. Also, I note the examples of other extensions cited by the appellant but I have limited information about them. I have taken all other matters raised into account but none alter my conclusion.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, it would conflict with UDP policies ENV39 and H9 and therefore the appeal fails.