Appeal 3347685

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 appeal form uses the description on the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the description on the application form, which I have used above, accurately describes the development to which the appeal relates.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a detached bungalow in which the roofline is the most prominent element viewed from the street by virtue of the land levels sloping down to the west. Whilst the unit is not of significant architectural merit, the original roofscape is proportionate therewith and, by association, the wider street scene. Immediately neighbouring the unit are other bungalows which are also stepped back from the highway. With the wider area being a mix of two storey dwellings and chalet houses which sit closer to the highway. Whilst the roof forms vary, the most common are a mix of gable roofs and hipped roofs which contribute positively to a conventional feel to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would result in a mansard style/agrarian type roofline that would be raised to be in line with the immediate neighbours. With which it would sit comfortably in overall height terms. That said, its shape and design would appear unconventional and thus awkward alongside other similar bungalows and, in form terms, the two storey examples. In addition, the bulk of the roof raising would result in a unit which would appear unduly prominent when exiting [address] and along [address]. It would be alien and detract from the homogenous quality of the collective set of bungalows in the vicinity. There is a varied architectural styling locally but, the roof type proposed is not commonly found in this location and it would, consequently, be an incongruous and unsympathetic addition, detracting from the prevailing roof forms and harming, as a result, the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019, the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document and Policies D1 and D3 of The London Plan 2021 which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard, amongst other things.

It is not sufficiently clear that the proposed development is the only way of meeting the increased internal space requirements of the incumbent family. I therefore attach moderate weight to this personal need. I understand there is a need to upgrade the existing roof, however it is also not sufficiently clear that the appeal proposal is the only way of doing this. I therefore ascribe moderate weight to this matter.

The appeal scheme would give rise to the harm I have described and, as a result, not comply with the development plan. I would give this substantial weight. I have been given no compelling reason, taking into account the weight I would attach to the other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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