Appeal 6000106

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

The appeal site is located within the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC), an area identified for its special and distinctive qualities. This includes the consistency in the front roof lines largely untouched by roof extensions or conversions and the symmetry between pairs of houses

The appeal site is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings around a cul-de-sac. The properties in the cul-de-sac of all of a similar interwar design under a hipped roof. Despite some properties having later additions and alterations, their common features, design and appearance, results in a harmonious and pleasant street scene which contributes to the special character of the ARSC.

The appeal property and the other half of the semi-detached pair are not currently symmetrical. Number 9 has a two storey extension to the side. However, it is set well down from the main ridge of the property and does not interfere with the symmetrical hipped design of the main roof.

The proposed dormer window in the rear roof slope would not be particularly prominent and I saw that other properties in the street had been extended in this manner. However, the proposal also includes an alteration to the main roof of the dwelling to create a half hip roof. This would result in a form of roof which would be strikingly different to the prevalent roof form around the cul-de-sac, including the neighbouring house in the semi-detached pair. The roof would look out of place and adversely affect the symmetry of the roof of the semi-detached pair. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I saw that other properties in the street had roof alterations. I also observed that these were in the form of dormer windows in the side roof slope, retaining the main shape and form of the hipped roof. Other examples elsewhere in the ASRC have been drawn to my attention, including appeal decisions. However, from the information before me, they are not comparable with the appeal proposal as they relate to properties on roads with a variety of house designs and not to properties in a cul-de-sac with a pleasing uniformity.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. It would conflict with Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the Bromley Local Plan, adopted January 2019 insofar as they require residential extensions to respect and complement the host dwelling and the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC.

I have considered other matters raised by an interested party including loss of privacy but given that I have identified harm in respect of the main issue, this is not a matter on which my decision turns.

The proposed development is contrary to the development plan 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.