Appeal 3314122

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension, creation of new second floor at Ridgewood, [site address] , Bickley, Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/22/03249/FULL6, dated 15 August 2022, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site location plan, Block/site plan, PDB/HR-01 ([name]), PDB/HR-02 ([name]), PDB/HR-03 ([name]), PDB/HR-07 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan), PDB/HR-11 (Proposed First Floor Plan [name]), PDB/HR-15 ([name] [name]), PDB/HR-16 ([name] and [name] [name]), PDB/HR-17 ([name] [name]), PDB/HR-18 (Existing and [address] Scene [name]) and PDB/HR-19 (Existing and [name]).

Prior to the construction of any external wall of the development hereby approved, details/samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples.

Notwithstanding condition 2 above and the proposed first floor layout plan on drawing number PDB/HR-11 (Proposed First Floor Plan [name]), the development hereby permitted shall be carried out so as to omit the window in the side elevation, in accordance with the proposed side elevations on drawing number PDB/HR-17 ([name] [name]).

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

The site comprises a detached house located on the corner of the [site address] /[address] junction in a residential area characterised by detached dwellings in generous plots. The appeal property is single storey but has a high tiled roof in which there are existing dormers providing first floor accommodation. There are bungalows with lower roofs to the north and west of the site and larger two-storey dwellings and three storey flats in the vicinity.

The proposal would add an additional storey to the house and include small dormers and rooflights in the roof space. Whilst the height of the proposed development and the inclusion of dormers would not be consistent with the four other single storey dwellings along this part of [site address] , the appeal property already differs from those bungalows by reason of its existing higher roof and curved front dormer.

The varied height of buildings in the locality, including two storey dwellings and three storey flats along [site address] and many two storey houses along this part of [address], means that the scale of the proposal would not be incongruous or dominant in the street scene or harm its distinctive qualities. The dwellings in the area have a mix of brick and rendered walls and tiled roofs and, subject to a condition, the proposed finishing materials would not be discordant. Dormers are not a common feature in the area but, as there are already dormers on the appeal property, and the proposed dormers would be relatively small with hipped roofs, they would not be harmful.

The proposal would significantly enlarge the size of the existing house and not be subservient to it. It would be visible from the [site address] /[address] junction and other parts of [address]. However, the proposed hipped roofs, gable feature and varied building and roof lines would create visual breaks to the development and the generous garden means that the rear elevation would be set back some distance from the boundary. In addition, the form of the dormers would reflect the existing rear ones and a large expanse of tiled roof would remain the most prominent feature of the property. As a result, the proposal would not result in a disproportionate addition or harm the appearance of the existing dwelling.

The Council does not raise objections to the proposed single storey rear extension to the appeal property. I have no reason to disagree with this.

Consequently, I conclude that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and area. It would comply with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan January 2016 which require developments to respect the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area. It would also be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interest of certainty. To protect the character and appearance of the area, I have also imposed a condition requiring details of the external materials to be approved. As there is a discrepancy between the proposed first floor plan and the proposed side elevations, a condition is needed to ensure the side window indicated on the layout plan is not implemented to protect the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.

I have considered the condition suggested by the Council to require obscure glazing to some of the rear first and second floor windows, against the tests set out in the Framework. There are already upper floor windows on the rear of the appeal property and the distances between the proposed upper floor windows and the neighbouring property would not be significantly changed. Even with the additional height, due to the orientation of the proposed windows, there would be no loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan and the Framework, and therefore the appeal is allowed.