Appeal 6000279

The appeal is dismissed.

There is a discrepancy in the submitted plans, as the elevation drawings show a two-storey building instead of three storeys. However, the appeal development relates only to the ground floor level, and I am satisfied that sufficient information has been provided for the assessment of the appeal development.

Whilst some development may have been undertaken, I have decided the appeal on the basis of the information before me rather than on what has been built on site.

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

The appeal site forms a part of a parade located on a corner of [address] and [address]. The ground floor of the parade comprises a number of commercial premises. At my site visit, I observed a variety of shops and restaurants within the wider area. The wide pavement and open forecourt create a pleasant, spacious and welcoming environment, forming part of the local distinctiveness and making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed shelter would be located on the hardstanding area in front of the building. It would not be small in scale, as it would extend across the full width of the shopfront and project towards the parking spaces at the front. Because of its significant projection and the fact that it would occupy the forecourt, the appeal development would diminish the spacious character the area, particularly along this parade. Therefore, it would result in a dominant and incongruous feature within the street scene.

Whilst it may be a lightweight structure that could provide a practical means of displaying and screening goods, the adverse effect would be exacerbated by its solid appearance on both side elevations. Unlike a retractable canopy, the appeal development would create an unsympathetic feature that would be visually prominent within the street scene.

The appellant contends the side elevations would be finished with high-quality panels and that the artwork on the side elevations may harmonise with the existing artwork on the host building. However, the proposed structure would be substantial in size, and the proposed material would not be consistent with those used on the host building. Moreover, the proposed structure would be dominant and visually prominent. The permanent nature of the panels would further detract from the open and spacious character of the forecourt, thereby reducing its contribution to the local distinctiveness.

The appellant has made reference to a number of examples on [address] and [address]. However, due to their set-back position, their different design, and the fact that they are not situated within the same context, none are directly comparable to the appeal development.

The appeal development may help to support the viability and growth of the existing business by providing space to display goods and improving the shopping experience for customers. It may also generate temporary and ongoing economic benefits through the construction works and continued expenditure in the area. These benefits are consistent with government policy, insofar as it seeks to support economic growth. Nevertheless, the overall combination of these benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policy 37 of London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (January 2019) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021). Taken together, these require that development is designed to a high standard and is in keeping with the character of the area.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.