Appeal 3355505

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the host property and the locality and b) living conditions for neighbours.

The appeal property is a two-storey, hipped roof, detached home with reasonable proportions and façade, on a rectangular plot. The street is of established residential character and includes a range of homes with, for the most part, traditional ridge roofs with hip or gable ends. These, along with gardens, result in a pleasing suburban scene. The proposal is as described above.

Whilst not increasing the scale of vertical walling on three sides the roof of the host property would be subject to radical change. The property’s appearance would markedly alter and, regrettably, this would be in a visually negative way. Increasing the steepness of the pitch and its bulk would look alien and awkward in the scene and the planned flat roof would stand out as running contrary to local established character. To my mind the proposed scheme would appear excessively ‘top-heavy’ and be visually ill-at-ease within this pleasantly innocuous stretch of street. It would lack the necessary sense of subtlety. Although not widely on show, I would also conclude that the rear wall approach to creating an extra floor would have very little finesse; a strange three storey elevation would be created.

In all the circumstances the proposed development overall would be harmful to the character and appearance of this property and its locality; the scheme would represent inappropriate design and disproportionate scale for this context.

Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (LP) are relevant. Taken together, and amongst other matters, they seek well designed development which is appropriate to a site and its setting and of a suitable scale, appearance and character to protect local distinctiveness. I conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to these policies.

The Council is concerned about impact upon residential amenities of residents at No [address], a single storey property. However, the rear projecting element which is planned to increase in height lies some distance within the host plot and is to the north; I am thus not convinced that any significant loss of outlook or undue shadowing would result. The principal rear wall of the host property would continue on its present alignment which is broadly in line with the rear of No 55 and therefore not visually intrusive or otherwise impinging.

The north side wall of the neighbouring dwelling already faces, across its side driveway, a vertical two storey wall topped by a roof pitching away. Whilst the roof would increase in mass and angle the reality would be that the vertical walling would continue to be the principal scene from the side of this dwelling and alterations above that would have very limited, if any, impact upon outlook and daylight.

Looking back from the middle or end of their rear garden neighbours would notice increased bulk and the uncomfortable design which I note above but I would not class this intermittent viewing as an overarching loss of amenity. 10.LP Policy 37 seeks to secure development which would protect living conditions for neighbours. I conclude that the appeal scheme would not conflict with this policy in this regard.