Appeal 3320131

The appeal is dismissed.

At my site visit, I saw that the development has been completed and I note that the application has been submitted retrospectively.

The main issue is the effect of the development having regard to the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).

The appeal site comprises a two-storey, semi-detached house with off-street parking on the driveway to the front. The local neighbourhood is residential in nature with [site address] station, shops and other facilities a short walk away in a broadly westerly direction.

The ARSC was originally designed following the garden suburb principle. I observed the consistency in the front roof lines along [address], which arelargely untouched by roof extensions or conversions. Also the symmetry between pairs and neighbouring pairs of houses, which is of importance in defining the character of the area.

I am aware that proposals which undermine the character, rhythm, symmetry and spatial standards of the area will be resisted. In this case the roof light, whilst of modest proportions, nevertheless interrupts the symmetry between the appeal house and the adjoining property. Furthermore, it results in a discordant feature when viewed in the context of the front elevations of dwellings along this side of the highway. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

I recognise that there is a front roof light to a dwelling on the opposite side of [address], however this is the exception within the street scene rather than the rule. I understand that this was implemented prior to the to the adoption of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (LP) and the date of the Article 4 Direction covering front elevation roof slope alterations within the ARSC; to my mind it does not therefore set a precedent for similar proposals elsewhere in the vicinity, which cumulatively could undermine the quality and unspoilt nature of front roof lines in the ASRC.

I acknowledge those other matters that have been advanced in support of the development, including the assertion that other distinctive architectural elements of the host dwelling would remain preserved I also sympathise with the appellant's position and recognise that this is a stressful situation. However, none of these points could justify the harm I have identified above.

On this basis I am drawn to conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the ASRC. This would be contrary to Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the LP, which seek to ensure proposals meet high standards of design and protect the character of neighbourhoods.

Having regard to all matters raised, I am of the view that the appeal should be dismissed.