Appeal 6000209

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 59), a detached dwelling situated within the Marlings Park Estate Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC). The ASRC consists of numerous well-designed and attractive dwellings. The Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) describes the ASRC as including a majority of 2-storey detached properties set within plots regularly laid out onto long roads, and that most houses are of a good quality [name] architectural or Arts and Craft design which gives pride of place to English vernacular features.

No 59 has an attractive asymmetrical design, with a catslide roof and a projecting element to its right-hand side. Although the ASRC as a whole contains dwellings exhibiting a variety of architectural styles, some of which have been extended to the side and rear, I observed that the particular design of No 59, with its distinctive catslide roof, is repeated periodically throughout the ASRC, albeit occasionally with minor variations. This design motif accordingly constitutes one of the distinctive qualities of the ASRC.

Part b of Policy 8 of the Local Plan, which relates to side space, refers to ‘residential areas’. In this regard, I observed that, although exceptions exist, including [address], [address] (No 5), and the recent approval at [address] (No 19A), within the ASRC as a whole, and on [address] in particular, large gaps to the side of dwellings at first floor level are often present. These gaps are commonly found above integrated garages, such as at [address], for example. Indeed, this is currently the case at the site. These gaps contribute towards the spacious aesthetic of the area. Consequently, part b of Policy 8 is applicable, which requires a more generous side space than the minimum 1 metre space from the side boundary of the site for the full height and length of the building (referred to in part a of Policy 8).

The proposed development would remove the existing garage and it would be replaced with a 2-storey front/side extension. This arrangement would provide at least a 1 metre separation distance between the extension on the western elevation of No 59 and the boundary of the plot at [address]. The gap between the side elevation of No 59 and the boundary of the plot at [address] would be retained as existing.

However, the proposed development would erode much of the space which presently exists at first floor level above No 59’s garage. Hence, the ‘generous side space’, which part b of Policy 8 requires for the full height and length of the building in this residential area, would not be maintained. The spacious quality of the area would be undermined. The proposed development would accordingly not meet the aim of Policy 8, which as explained in paragraph 2.1.68 of the Local Plan, is in part to protect the high spatial standards and levels of visual amenity which characterise many of the Borough’s residential areas.

The proposed new forward projecting gable would compete somewhat with the existing right-hand side projecting element, but not to a degree which would disrupt the legible and coherent proportions of No 59. The proposed 2-storey side extension would reduce the visual prominence of No 59’s asymmetrical design, but not to the extent that the architectural integrity of No 59 would be unduly weakened. Although the scale and bulk of No 59 would be increased, as much of this would impact the rear of No 59, the attractiveness of No 59’s front elevation would be maintained. The design of the enlarged and repositioned front porch would not differ substantially from that present on site.

However, the design of the left flank elevation is of concern. This elevation would present an almost entirely featureless façade towards the street. It would lack interest and would markedly contrast with the appearance of dwellings in the vicinity, which typically are articulated with features such as windows, chimney structures, and brickwork detailing. Moreover, the proposed development would remove the attractive brickwork edging present on No 59, which is a feature of value which is commonly seen on dwellings in the ASRC. As such, the proposed development would not represent an improvement over the design of No 59 as existing. Its presently attractive visual contribution to the street scene would be undermined.

It follows that the proposed development would not respond to character by adopting an appropriate design approach, as advocated by part f) of DG5 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023). Taking all of the above into account, the proposed development would not respect or enhance the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC, as required by Policy 44 of the Local Plan.

[address] appeared to be undergoing reconstruction at the time of my site visit. From my observations, and the limited information provided relating to that development, it appears that its design would be quite different to the proposed development. As that development is not directly comparable with the proposed development, it provides limited support for it. Furthermore, as the Council’s Officer’s Report(s) relating to that development have not been provided, nor for the approvals at No 5, the Council’s reasoning with respect to the effect of these developments on the character and appearance of the ASRC is unclear.

Taking account of the numerous large gaps to the side of dwellings at first floor level present within the ASRC as a whole, the singular quote taken from the Council’s Officer’s Report relating to the recent approval at No 19A does not adequately explain how the Council’s conclusion was reached with respect to part a of Policy 8 being applicable, rather than part b of Policy 8. As a result, none of these examples alter 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 host dwelling and the area. It would conflict with parts a and b of Policy 6 of the Local Plan which provide that, amongst other things, the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties will be required to ensure that the scale, form and materials of construction should respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area, and that space or gaps between buildings should be respected or maintained where these contribute to the character of the area.

The proposed development would conflict with part b of Policy 8 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, when considering applications for new residential development, including extensions, the Council will normally require that where higher standards of separation already exist within residential areas, proposals will be expected to provide a more generous side space.

The proposed development would conflict with parts a and b of Policy 37 of the Local Plan which provide 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, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas, and positively contribute to the existing street scene. It would conflict with Policy 44 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposed in areas designated as ASRCs will be required to respect, enhance and strengthen their special and distinctive qualities.

The proposed development would conflict with part D 11) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character.

The proposed development would enhance the accommodation on site, to the benefit of the current and future occupiers of No 59. However, these benefits would be mainly private in nature. The proposed development would use land efficiently, which is supported by chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and part A of Policy D3 of the London Plan. Given the overall scale of the proposed development, the benefits to the area in this regard would not be significant.

Thus, the combined benefits of the proposed development merit little weight. They would not outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided 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 Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.