Appeal 3293222

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the [address] and [address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).

The ASRC is considered important due to the size of the dwellings and their original early Edwardian construction. The host dwelling is a typical example of these traditional, 2 storey, semi-detached properties.

The frontages of the [address] properties are reasonably uniform with similar decorative features. The rears, however, are considerably less consistent with many extensions and alterations in evidence. From the Council’s description of the ASRC, the frontages of the properties are what give the area its special character. One of the more obvious elements of these properties is the linear build line along [address], emphasised by the uniformity of ridge heights, as well as the regular pattern created by the parapeted gables and party walls.

The proposal would increase the height of the ridge to accommodate the rear dormer. To do this would set the ridge further back and increase the height of the parapet on both the gable and party wall. This part of the proposal would be visible from the front of the property. It would not only harm the appearance of the front elevation of the host dwelling by losing the central alignment of the roof ridge between the apex of the parapets, but also the symmetry of the parapet walls across the semi-detached pair. This would create an awkward pause in the regular pattern of roof forms along [address].

From the rear, the proposal would not be dissimilar to other extensions within the area, and when viewed from a distance would not look out of place in context with the existing and varied rear alterations and extensions on properties within the same row. The proposal would also not extend beyond the side elevation of the main part of the host dwelling, so would not harm the regular spacing between buildings which is part of the character of the area.

Policy 44 of the Bromley Local Plan (Local Plan) requires that development should respect, enhance, and strengthen the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC. By disrupting the roofscape of [address] the proposal does not achieve this.

It is noted that the appellant considers the ridge heights to vary along [address] and has indicated 3 properties (Nos 30, 32 and 52) where similar alterations have taken place. The alterations to all 3 roof forms are visible from [address] and in all cases constitute an exception to the roofscape. Nevertheless, they were approved under the previous development plan, so the circumstances of their approval are not directly comparable with the proposal before me.

The proposed development would, therefore, harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the ASRC. This would be contrary to Local Plan policies 6, 37 and 44 insofar as they relate to character and appearance and the protection of ASRCs.

The lack of harm to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties and the appellants reasoning for needing the proposal are noted. However, a lack of harm, by definition, cannot outweigh harm found, and the appellant’s private interests would be neutrally weighted. Consequently, these matters do not outweigh the harm identified in the main issue.

The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan as a whole, for the reasons given above. There are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, that would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed.