Appeal 6000035

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 2), a semi-detached dwelling situated on a generously-sized plot in a residential area. The local area generally consists of semi-detached and terraced dwellings of a broadly consistent scale and design. The layout of the area consists of dwellings commonly arranged in rows which align with the curvature of the highway, often with unextended front elevations, albeit some have porches. No 2 has previously been extended (via a single storey extension) and is located on the corner of [address] and [address]. No [address] and occupies a prominent position in the street scene.

The proposed part one/2-storey front extension would extend much of the front elevation of No 2 by approximately 3 metres. The proposed materials would complement No 2 as existing. Nevertheless, the proposed extension would constitute a sizeable addition to No 2, which would not be subservient to the remainder of No 2, but rather would appear as an incongruous addition to it. The proposed extension would also disrupt the visual balance which No 2 and [address] currently exhibit as a semi-detached pair.

Furthermore, although No 2 would not extend beyond the principal elevation of [address], No 2 would appear overly-large in comparison with nearby dwellings, thereby upsetting the broadly uniform architectural aesthetic of the area described above, and appearing out-of-keeping with the established visual identity of the area. Due to its prominent siting, and its substantially increased scale and bulk, No 2 would appear unduly dominant in the street scene. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would thereby result.

Reference has been made to national guidelines for development in urban areas. However, it has not been made clear what guidelines are being referred to, and as no copy of any guidelines have been provided I am unable to assess the proposed development against these. As such, this is not a matter which alters my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with part a of Policy 6 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties should ensure that the scale and form should respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area, and with parts a and b of Policy 37 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, developments will be expected to be imaginative and attractive to look at, of a good architectural quality and should complement the scale, proportion, and form of adjacent buildings and areas, and positively contribute to the existing street scene.

The proposed development would provide enhanced living conditions, which would benefit the occupiers of No 2. As this would mainly comprise a private benefit, it merits little weight in favour of the proposed development, and it does not overcome the harm identified on the main issue.

Overall, none of the other considerations material to the proposed development indicate that this appeal decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.