Appeal 3287643

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey house that occupies a corner plot on the south side of Northourne and its junction with [address]. Both these streets reflect the general character of the area, in that they predominantly comprise semi-detached dwellings, with rear gardens and parking to the front.

The proposal is for extensions that would wrap around part of the front, flank and rear of the existing house. With the proposed setbacks, matching roof angles, forms and materials, the proposal would appear to reflect the design and scale of the existing house.

However, at ground floor level the proposal would result in the existing separation of the appeal property from the side boundary to [address] being reduced from approximately 2.7m to a sliver, narrowing to almost nothing towards the front of the proposed extension.

This reduction in separation distance would result in the proposed extension appearing to step significantly forward of the established building line on [address]. This building line appears to align with the flank wall of the appeal property as existing.

In stepping forward of this established building line, the proposal would result in a bulky, prominent and intrusive addition to the local street scene and would infill the space to the side of the appeal property. This space to the side of the appeal property currently makes a significant contribution to the spacious character and appearance of the local area. In this regard, the effect of the bulk and scale of the prosed extension on the local streetscene, would be considerably greater than that of the existing garden wall of varied height, which sits along the boundary of the appeal property with [address].

The appellant has drawn my attention to other side and wrap around forms of extensions in the local area, however, I find that none of these represents an exemplar for, or comparison to, the proposal, in that they are either not to properties on corner plots, or do not take the same form as the proposal, with a comparable effect on established building lines. As these would have been considered on their own merits, I have, therefore, given only moderate weight to these in my considerations.

I acknowledge that the appellant has sought to overcome the reasons for refusal for an earlier application, through the reduction in scale of the proposal, resulting in a reduction in width and greater set back from the existing front elevation at first floor level. However, the proposal does not fully address the separation distance of the appeal property to the flank boundary, and I must determine the application on its own individual merits.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. This would be contrary to policies 6, 8 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). These collectively seek to ensure that developments are of a high standard of design and integrate with the local area, including their spatial characteristics.

The appeal is dismissed.