Appeal 3299103

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building and on the street scene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached property on the west side of [address] and within a predominantly residential area. Although there have been alterations and changes to some of the individual properties including at roof level, the mainly semi-detached houses in [address] together with the neighbouring road, [address] have distinctive wide gables across the front of the semi-detached pair and more modest hipped roofs to the rear. The timber decoration to the front gables and bow windows, together with the roof form define the pattern and character of the local area.

The proposal would make a series of changes at roof level to accommodate living space at second floor level, including hip to gable extensions together with a large dormer at the rear.

I understand the Appellant’s objectives to avoid a dormer on the front roof slope. However, the scale and form of the proposed changes at the front, side and rear would combine to result in a complicated and cumbersome roof form that would detract from the existing form of the house. They would result in a top heavy and overly bulky appearance to the house that would overwhelm its existing scale and proportions.

Furthermore, it would result in a visually intrusive unbalancing of the existing semi-detached pair in the street, where the street scene and pattern of development is defined by the pairs of semi-detached properties with their distinctive roofscapes and dominant wide front gables. Contrary to the views of the Appellant, I consider that the proposed roof works at the front and the side would be particularly evident in the street scene because of the bend in the road and greater spacing to the adjoining semi-detached pair.

I therefore consider that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. It would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan as well as the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters, seek a high standard of design which respects the local context.

The Council has advised that a number of the changes at roof level undertaken to other properties in the street do not benefit from planning permission. I have also taken into account the extensions to which the Appellant has drawn my attention in the locality and note that some of these have been found to be permitted development. However, for the reasons set out above, these other roof extensions and alterations do not persuade me to a different view, given the harm I have concluded in this case.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.