Appeal 3293819

This appeal is dismissed.

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

This part of [address] is characterised by two storey semi-detached dwellings, which are largely consistent in appearance. Buildings are separated by a vehicle access. Although there has been some development at ground floor in these gaps, the break in development is clear, particularly at first floor and above. No. 122 shares these characteristics. These regular gaps between pairs results in an attractive sense of spaciousness and uniformity to the development in this road.

There is an existing side extension at no. 1071 which is set back from the frontage and down from the ridge and as such appears secondary to the main dwelling. There are also side extensions to 1162 and 1423, however these properties are at the ends of this group of dwellings and therefore their context, particularly in terms of their effect on openness between buildings differs. Furthermore, such extensions are uncommon and do not form an overriding part of the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal scheme would create a two storey side extension to [site address] . It would be aligned with the front elevation of the host property, extend to the site boundary and to the ridge height, and would increase the size of the rear dormer. 1 LPA ref: 20/00157/FULL6 2 LPA ref: 07/00748/FULL6 3 LPA ref: 08/03978/FULL6

The proposed development would significantly reduce the separation between adjoining properties and would harmfully undermine the open and regular pattern of development in this road. The size and bulk of the alterations on this plot would also result in the host dwelling appearing as unacceptably dominant in the streetscene. It would not provide the minimum 1 metre space from the side boundary as required by Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Local Plan, London Borough of Bromley Planning Division, January 2019) (Local Plan) which, in part, results in the harmful effects described above.

Therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, in this respect, it would be contrary to Policies 6, 8 and 37 of the Local Plan. Together these provide criteria to achieve a high standard of design from all new development including residential extensions and with particular regard to side space.

The proposed development would improve the size and quality of accommodation at this property. However, the development relates to alterations to a single existing dwelling, therefore these benefits are minimal in scale. Consequently, they would not outweigh the notable public and permanent harm to the character and appearance of the area, which is contrary to the development plan.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.