Appeal 3298154

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The appellant has drawn attention to an error between the first floor plan and the front elevation plan, in that the floor plan incorrectly includes a bay window. The appellant has confirmed that this should be a flat window as per the elevation detail and it is clear that the Council determined the application on this basis.

The Council has no concerns in respect of the proposed ground floor rear extension and I find no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two-storey end of terrace dwelling in a prominent corner position at the junction of [address] and [name]. The site sits within an established residential area comprising sets of terraces similar to the appeal property.

On the opposite side of the junction to the appeal site, [address] is set back from the boundary along [name] and has no side extension. The appeal property currently has a small single-storey extension which is set back from the boundary. Taken together with the wide road, the junction of [address] and [name] has a spacious appearance which is a characteristic and positive feature of several corner plots in the locality.

The two-storey side extension would replace the existing small single-storey side extension, extending 4m from the flank elevation. It would be set marginally back from the front elevation, with a lower ridge line and matching roof form and materials to the host property and so appearing subservient.

However, the flank elevation of the proposed two-storey extension would be in close proximity to the boundary along [name]. It would exceed the 1 metre requirement set out in Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (LP) but the wording of the policy states at least 1 metre indicating an element of discretion depending on the site context.

In this case, despite an approximate distance of 18m to No 32, I consider that the spacing provided would not be sufficient to respect the street scene and wider area. This is because the two storey nature of the proposal, in combination with its close proximity to the boundary, would make the extension appear prominent in views along [address] towards the junction. This would unduly affect and diminish the open character currently experienced at this location, harming the character and appearance of the area where side extensions on corner plots are predominantly single storey or set further back from the boundary.

The appellant has drawn attention to five other properties in the vicinity which have had two-storey side extensions, the impact of which I carefully considered and observed on my site visit. At the opposite end of the terrace, [address] is not in a prominent corner position so is not the same context as the appeal property. Whilst the example of 2 [name] is not subservient in nature, it is not as close to the side boundary as the proposal.

At [address] and [address], the first floors are set in from the ground floor, which reduces the extensions’ prominence and retains more of an open character. Whilst [address] is similar in design to the proposal and is in a corner position, the property is angled and set much further back from the road and retains more space to the side of the property. These factors reduce the extension’s impact on the street scene. Consequently, the examples provided do not change my findings in respect of the proposal.

In conclusion, the two-storey side extension would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with [name] 6 and 37 which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that space or gaps which contribute to the character of the area are maintained.

The proposed development does not accord with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.