Appeal 6000215

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of carport, detached garage and chimney. Erection of part single storey/part two storey front, side and rear wraparound extension with roof window, hip-to-gable roof extension, rear dormer with Juliet balcony, formation of hard surfaced driveway at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00323/FULL6, and subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council's decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as, "Demolition of carport, detached garage and chimney. Erection of part single storey/part two storey front, side and rear wraparound extension with roof window, hip-to-gable roof extension, rear dormer with Juliet balcony, formation of hard surfaced driveway". I have used this description in my consideration of the appeal and in my decision since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms.

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 138), a semi-detached 2- storey dwelling situated within the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC). No 138 has a hipped roof with a central chimney1, which are features common to many other dwellings on [site address] Road. The other half of 1 Chimney now removed following the construction works described below. the semi-detached pair, 136 [site address] Road (No 136), benefits from an existing single storey side/rear wraparound extension incorporating a garage.

The local area is predominantly residential, consisting of detached and semi-detached dwellings stemming from the inter-war period. [name] and Arts and Crafts features are in evidence. These dwellings are often set within fairly spacious plots in what is a quite verdant area. The Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) states that whilst there have been some changes post-war, the prevailing design of the buildings within the ASRC is from the 1930s and remains largely intact, and that the regularity of front building and rear building lines, the consistency in the front roof lines largely untouched by roof extensions or conversions and the symmetry between pairs and neighbouring pairs of houses are of importance in defining the character of the area.

I observed all of the examples of dwellings within the ASRC referred to by the appellant, including those on [address], [address], [site address] Road, and [address]. On these streets I observed numerous examples of one semi-detached dwelling being noticeably altered in isolation from its adjoining semi-detached neighbour, including at roof level. Hence, whilst I have had due regard to the quotes from Inspector’s appeal decision at [address] (referred to in the Council’s Officer’s Report), these examples make clear that the pre-existing quality of symmetry within the ASRC, referred to above, has been somewhat eroded over time.

Planning permission Ref 24/02688/FULL1 relates to a joint application pertaining to both No 136 and No 138, which approved (amongst other works) hip-to-gable roof extensions and front rooflights together with rear dormers. At the site visit I observed that an extensive amount of scaffolding was present to the front and the rear of both dwellings. In this regard, the appellant has confirmed that the roof extension at No 136 is under construction in accordance with planning permission Ref 24/02688/FULL1. The photographs supplied in the Grounds of Appeal Statement demonstrate that these works are ongoing.

The proposed development does not include any works to No 136. It would however create a hip-to-gable roof extension at No 138 which would closely resemble that already approved at No 136. It would introduce a part single storey/part 2-storey front, side and rear wraparound extension incorporating a porch and a false garage. Although the porch / garage element would step forward slightly beyond the central portion of No 138, a similar arrangement already exists at No 136. As such, this element of the proposed development would closely mirror the appearance of the existing porch and garage at No 136.

The first floor side extension element of the proposed wraparound extension would project beyond the side flank of No 138. Nevertheless, it would be set significantly back from its front elevation. Its visual impact would be further constrained by its limited height and width. Consequently, this element would not appear as an overly-prominent feature in the street scene.

The single storey part of the proposed wraparound extension would be broadly similar in size and scale to the corresponding single storey side/rear wraparound extension at No 136. The first floor rear element of the proposed wraparound extension would be acceptably set-in from the site boundaries, thereby maintaining an appropriately-sized gap in relation to the plot at 140 [site address] Road (No 140). Considering the prevalence of rear extensions at first floor level and above in the near vicinity, it would not appear as an incongruous feature when seen from local viewpoints, including from the rear gardens of nearby dwellings.

Taking all of the above into account, considering that works pertaining to planning permission Ref 24/02688/FULL1 are already underway (including the roof extension at No 136), the proposed development would complement the ongoing works to No 136. Specifically, the proposed development would result in Nos 136 and 138 exhibiting a high degree of symmetry in the street scene, including with respect to their roof forms and front elevations. This would complement the rhythm and pattern of development in the area, where the symmetry between dwellings forming semi-detached pairs and the consistency in the front roof lines are still notable features of the ASRC, despite the alterations and extensions undertaken to various dwellings throughout the ASRC.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policy 6 of the Local Plan which provides 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 with 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, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas.

The proposed development would comply 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 comply with 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.

As this appeal relates to a householder application, the biodiversity gain condition is not applicable.

I have considered the need for conditions against the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Conditions are necessary, in the interests of clarity and enforceability, setting out the timescale for the commencement of development (condition 1) and the approved plans (condition 2), respectively. A condition is necessary controlling external materials to secure an acceptable appearance for the proposed development, to safeguard the character and appearance of the area (condition 3).

The Council’s Highway Department have recommended a condition relating to suitable surface water drainage. I note that paragraph 9.13.1 of the London Plan states that London is at particular risk from surface water flooding, mainly due to the large extent of impermeable surfaces. The proposed development would form a new driveway / parking area, by extending the amount of hardstanding on site, thereby potentially increasing the risk of surface water run-off. Therefore, in accordance with Policy 115 of the Local Plan, which seeks to, amongst other things, reduce surface water run-off, a condition is necessary for details of a surface water drainage scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (condition 4).

Any views towards the rear garden at No 140 from the new side flank window proposed for the gable-ended roof formation would be at an oblique angle. Given that the first floor rear windows at No [address] into that area, as do the high-level windows which serve the rear dormer extension at 142 [site address] Road, the presence of this new window would not meaningfully result in any further loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 140. In these circumstances, a condition requiring the side flank window to be obscure-glazed and with restricted opening would not be necessary.

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 allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Existing & [name] ([name]. A1/2377/p/2), Existing & [name] & Elevations ([name]. A1/2377/p/1).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those specified in the application form (dated: 23rd January 2025) and as shown on the approved plans.

The new driveway / parking area shall not be used for the parking of vehicles until the area described as ‘new driveway’ shown on [name]. A1/2377/p/2 has been drained and surfaced in accordance with the details of a surface water drainage scheme that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works implemented shall be retained thereafter. The driveway / parking area shall thereafter be kept available at all times for the parking of vehicles. End of Conditions Schedule