Appeal 3323384

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 upon the character and appearance of the area.

Pimalai is a detached two-storey dwelling located at the end of [address], a cul-de-sac off [address] in Chiselhurst. The area to the front of the property largely consists of a block paved driveway/parking area and the existing double garage. There are also two areas of landscaping, between the house and the garage and a largely grassed area between the gravelled shared access and the properties block paved parking area.

The distinctive character of the street scene is derived from large, detached houses of varying designs within large plots with trees and other vegetation. This creates a feeling of openness on [address]. The open character is visible from numerous vantage points along [address] and the open aspect is an important feature in this low-density urban area. For the most part, the front amenity areas are free from substantial built development.

My attention has been drawn to a previous unsuccessful proposal1 at the site for what I understand was a larger development to the one before me. 1 Planning application reference 05/02646/FULL6 & appeal ref APP/G5180/A/06/2011229 Notwithstanding that, I have determined the current appeal on its individual merits.

The proposed two storey extension would fill the entire gap between the host dwelling and the detached garage and would result in a bulky development which would dominate the head of the cul-de-sac largely owing to its height and width, extending to join up the detached garage. In coming to that view, I acknowledge that the ridge line of the proposal would be below that of the host dwelling. Furthermore, this bulky addition would be detrimental to the appearance of the host property. It would also be at odds with the character of the surrounding area which is largely free of substantial development at the frontages to the properties in the street.

The appellant sets out that the character of the area has evolved since the appeal decision in 2006 and have referred to 3 developments in the area that the Council has granted planning permission which also includes two storey front additions. However, I have limited details of these developments and from the information before me none of these are comparable to the proposal before me. Notwithstanding that, nothing that I observed at my site visit provides me with a compelling justification to permit an otherwise unacceptable development.

Taking all the above points together, I find that the bulk and height of the proposed two storey extension would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Accordingly, there would be conflict with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019). These policies amongst other matters seek to ensure that the alteration or enlargement of residential properties respect or complement the scale, form and materials of construction the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area, and space or gaps between buildings should be respected or maintained where these contribute to the character of the area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.