Appeal 6000104

The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal is for a revised scheme. It follows an earlier proposal1 which was dismissed at appeal2.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the area which is within the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC); and • The living conditions of the neighbouring occupier with regards to outlook.

The development of the ASRC in the early part of the twentieth century followed the [name] principle and remains largely intact to this day. Consisting of detached and semi-detached properties in large plots, its special and distinctive qualities arise from the separation between buildings, the rhythm and pattern of the houses, and the prevailing symmetry between pairs and neighbouring pairs of houses.

The appeal site is one half of a semi-detached pair which, when viewed from [site address] Road, appear largely symmetrical. The intervening single storey garages separating the pair from neighbouring pairs, results in a high degree of separation 1 [name]: 23/01337/FULL6 First floor side/rear extension and conversion of enlarged roof space to habitable accommodation including rear dormer extension sand side roof light. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/23/3331283 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ and a feeling of spaciousness. The appeal property therefore positively contributes towards the recognised character of the ASRC.

The two storey extension to the rear would extend across only part of the rear elevation. Set down from the main ridge of the dwelling, the size and scale of the proposal would not overwhelm the rear of the building, nor would it be visible from other parts of the ASRC.

The area description of the ASRC in the Bromley Local Plan, adopted January 2019 (LP) states that in many cases, there is a much wider separation between houses than in other parts of the Borough. I also saw on my site visit that there were a number of locations within the ASRC which felt more spacious than others. The appeal site is one such location.

The proposed first floor side extension would enclose the space above the existing garage and reduce the visual gap between the appeal property and the neighbouring dwelling. However, it would be located 1.5 metres away from the boundary with that property. Given that this part of [site address] Road has a particularly spacious character, sufficient space would be retained between the appeal property and the neighbouring property such that the open and spacious character of this part of the ASRC would be preserved.

However, the proposed first floor extension to the side of the property would result in the property being noticeably at odds with its semi-detached neighbour. This would unbalance and disrupt the current symmetry of the semi-detached pair when viewed from [site address] Road. There are many examples of properties in the ASRC which have been extended resulting in semi-detached pairs which are not symmetrical3. I have also been provided with details of other appeals4 where Inspectors concluded that alterations resulting in semi-detached pairs which were not balanced, would not be out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area. However, I saw that symmetrical pairs are a notable feature of many of the properties close to the appeal site and there is no substantive evidence before me that the examples put to me are directly comparable to the appeal proposal, in terms of the design, appearance and context of those properties. My findings in this respect are consistent with those of the previous Inspector.

The proposal would unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties and in doing so, would fail to respect the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC which includes the symmetry between pairs of houses. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would be contrary to Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the LP insofar as they require development to be compatible with and contribute positively to the street scene, together with respecting, enhancing and strengthening the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC. The proposal would also conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 which requires that developments respond positively to local distinctiveness and respect architectural features that contribute towards local character. 3 Including 4,10,16,31,35,36,67,75 and 77 [site address] Road; 21a,13,15,27,29,31,33,35,37,47,49,55 and [address] 4 Including [address], [address], [address] and [address] ____________________________________________________________________________________________

The rear two storey extension would be larger and have a higher roof than the extension proposed in the previous appeal scheme. It would therefore sit closer to the boundary with 26 [site address] Road and have a greater visual mass.

However, it would be located approximately 2.7 metres away from the boundary and the submitted plans demonstrate that the depth of the extension would not intersect the 45 degree line of sight from the nearest neighbouring window. The proposed extension would also be on the north elevation and have a hipped roof which reduces the overall bulk and mass of the roof.

Whilst the proposed extension would no doubt be visible from the rear windows of number 26, for the reasons set out above, it would not be overbearing nor result in loss of outlook. I therefore find no conflict with Policy 37 of the LP which seeks to ensure that development proposals respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

I have concluded that no harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would arise, that the two storey extension would not overwhelm the rear of the property and that the side extension above the garage would preserve the open and spacious character of the area. However, the proposal would lead to a loss of symmetry with the neighbouring property. This would not respect, enhance and strengthen the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC which includes symmetry between pairs of dwellings. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would therefore be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.