Appeal 3286169

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/21/03561/FULL6, dated 14 July 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the location plan and drawing numbers (00) 01, (00) 02, (11) 01, (11) 02, (11) 03 and (11) 04.

The materials to be used on the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. This application will be the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The dwellings on [site address] are two storeys high, and are arranged in tightly packed, short terraces, with their front faces close to the highway. The host is one such property, which is located on a corner plot, with its flank set in from the highway, broadly in line with the flank of 18 [site address] (‘No 18’) opposite. On the other side of the junction, the flank walls of 16 and 17 [site address] (‘Nos 16 and 17’) also broadly align.

The scheme’s materials, form, and design would reflect the appearance of the host property, and would respect the remainder of this terrace. Given the set back of its front elevation, and the set down of its ridge, it would appear entirely subordinate to the host.

The dwellings in [address] are more modern and set further back from the road. Seen from there, whilst the proposal would be well forward of the [address] building lines, that can also be said of the host dwelling, and given the context and the significant gap to [address] it would not appear incongruous in that streetscene.

The extension would be prominent in views looking along [site address] from the south-east. However, whilst as a result of this scheme No [site address] ’s flank would no longer align with the flank of No 18, and it would be closer to the highway than the flanks of Nos 16 and 17, there would still be a gap to the plot boundary, measured by the appellant at about 0.6 metre. Consequently, and as a result of the scheme’s matching materials and its appropriate, subordinate design, it would not stand out as incongruous or disrupt the urban grain.

Amongst other things and in general terms Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (‘BLP’) require high quality design which contributes positively to the streetscene, and require extensions to complement the host and to maintain gaps between buildings where these contribute to the character of the area. BLP Policy 8 states that to prevent a cramped appearance two storey extensions should normally be a minimum of 1 metre from the site’s side boundary.

For the above reasons and given the context here, the development would not look cramped or incongruous, it would not harm the character and appearance of the area, and it would not conflict with those development plan policies.

Although the site is within the Shortlands Village Conservation Area (‘SVCA’), the Council has not stated in its decision that it considers that the significance of that designated heritage asset would be harmed, and the Council’s Conservation Officer raised no objection. For the above reasons, and having regard to the form and spatial pattern of development within the SVCA, I consider that its character and appearance would be preserved.

Turning to the matter of conditions, I have imposed the standard time limit condition and, in the interests of certainty, a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In the interests of the character and appearance of the host and the area, a condition is also necessary requiring that the scheme be faced with matching materials.

Finally, although the Highway Development Engineer states that a ‘satisfactory parking’ condition should be imposed, I have not been provided with any reasons for, or detailed wording of, such a condition.

Summing up, the scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.