Appeal 3281252

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

I saw at my site visit that properties in the area vary in appearance and scale, with many evidently having been altered and extended over the years. However, houses remain in scale with their plots, with each other and the wider area: in general, they appear as two storey houses of appropriate height, depth and width as viewed along the road. In particular, the roofs to houses are generally pitched and not of great bulk or depth. As a consequence of these features the road retains its appearance as an attractive, spacious residential thoroughfare with inter-War houses fronting it.

The proposed extensions to No. 68 would see a significant re-modelling of the house and extensions to the building. The side extension would increase the width of the house, which would be combined with extensions and alterations to the roof to create a new crown roof structure over the house. The front elevation of the property would be altered as part of these works to create a new central gable rising to the roof, with two dormers in the new second floor.

This work would substantially change the appearance of the house from a modest dwelling, generally reflective of the character of the area, to a very substantial double-fronted house of an appearance that is not reflected in the character or pattern of housing in the area. The new central gable rising to the roof – and the large scale and depth of that new crown roof – would www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate particularly emphasise the over-dominant size of the addition to the house and the inappropriate remodeling of the building to a form that is incongruous with the host property and the surrounding area. The scale and design of the extensions would thus not appear related to the host property in scale, form or design, and I saw at my site visit that this is a scale of change not seen along the road. The proposed use of render to all the remodeled elevations would reinforce that appearance of over-dominant additions to the house.

Policy 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 requires, amongst other matters, all development, including extensions, to be of good architectural quality and complement the scale, proportion, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas. Policy 6 of the Local Plan further requires the scale, form and materials of construction of all extensions to respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area. The proposed works would not represent a design that complements or recognises the pattern and appearance of the host property or the residential dwellings within the street scene. The visually over-dominant scale and design of the proposals would thus be harmful to character and appearance and so conflict with the development plan.

I acknowledge the appellant’s wish to extend their property to provide additional accommodation. However, I must balance this desire against other matters of acknowledged importance as reflected in the policies of the development plan. For the reasons given I consider the conflict with the Local Plan outweighs other considerations and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.