Appeal 3321579

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a two storey semi detached hipped roof dwelling. The adjoining dwelling has clearly been extended, mainly over two storeys to the side. That extension follows the building in terms of the position of its walls and shape of the roof. The street scene is made up of very similar buildings of heights, roof shapes and setbacks from the road that contribute positively to a pleasant consistency.

The proposal would not raise the ridge height or affect the front roof slope of the dwelling. However, the dormer would occupy a significant proportion of the rear roof slope, being level with the ridge and in close proximity to the eaves. It would be tall, boxy and appear overly large, lacking subservience to its host. It would interrupt and visually dominate the roof slope, reducing the quality of the street scene’s consistency, being noticeable as it would from [address] to the north. Consequently, and although it would use appropriate materials, it would not respond positively to the original architecture or roof form of the host building and would unacceptably erode the quality of the area’s consistency.

As such, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would fail to comply with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), insofar as they require development to be of high-quality design that respects or compliments the host property.

The appellant draws attention to the possibility of seeking a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) to change the main roof from a hip to a gable under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GDPO) Schedule 2 Part 1 [name] and [name] would not however be for my recommendation to determine whether such would be lawful, this would be for the submission of a LDC to consider, which is not in the evidence. In any event, my concerns in regard to the appeal relate to the dormer and no part of the appeal scheme relates to changing the current hipped roof to a gable. Any works that could be carried out under the permitted development regime are such that does not require, in the case of [name] and C, a submission to the Council for approval. It could thus operate without consideration of the effect it would have on the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has also drawn attention to many other properties within the area that have benefited from maximising their permitted development rights to obtain larger roof space conversions and other extensions. I cannot be certain which properties benefitted from which schemes either as a result of express planning permission or otherwise. And having visited the site, they do not appear to relate to the context in which the appeal scheme would be appreciated. My recommendation would thus be unchanged.

The appeal scheme would be contrary to the development plan and there are no other material considerations worthy of sufficient weight to find otherwise. I therefore recommend the appeal be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis I dismiss the appeal.