Appeal 6000333

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to 14 and [address]; however, it is evident that the Council is concerned about the neighbouring properties which, as the houses are numbered consecutively, are 15 and 17. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

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

[address] is a cul-de-sac comprising of detached dwellings fronting the road. The houses have been constructed to a limited number of designs, which along with their regular spacing and consistent set back from the street, creates a largely uniform, spacious and uncluttered appearance to the street scene. This contributes positively to the local character and appearance of the area. [address] (consecutive) are a grouping of the same design type, albeit a degree of variety is created by some houses having their ridge lines parallel to the road and others with their ridges perpendicular.

The appeal site shares a consistent building line with [address], with each property having a projecting single storey garage to the front elevation, which adds to the visual rhythm of the group. The proposal is for a first floor front extension over the projecting garage, a first floor side extension set below the roof line of the host building, and a single storey rear extension.

The proposed front extension would interrupt the established building line and disrupt the visual rhythm of the group of houses of which the appeal property forms a part. Similarly, the side extension would be closer to the boundary with [address] than is characteristic of this row of properties resulting in a more cramped form of development at odds with the rhythm of the spacing between the dwellings in this particular location, causing harm to the established character and appearance of the area.

There is some dispute over the width of the front extension relative to the main dwelling. Its precise proportion is not relevant to the consideration of the effect of the proposal: which, in respect of the first floor extension, would be a bulky addition to the front of the building. The integral flat roof garage may be utilitarian in appearance, but it is a typical, and recurrent, feature of this section of the street scene. Conversion of the garage in the manner proposed would exacerbate the discordant nature of the front extension.

It is accepted that the proposed first floor side extension is 1m from the side boundary, but this space is not retained for the full height of the building as required by Policy 8 of the Bromley Local Plan, 2019. In this particular context, having regard to the spacing of the buildings in the vicinity, the proposed side extension would be an incongruous addition to the appeal property.

For these reasons, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies 6, 8 and 37 of the Local Plan which seek to ensure that residential extensions are of a scale and form which respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area. It would also conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan, which seeks to ensure that development enhances local context and responds to the existing character of a place.

Additionally, it would conflict with the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, 2023, which advises that extensions to existing buildings should relate to the character/form of the building and appear as integral to its design.

The appellant has referred to a number of other developments in the vicinity and I acknowledge that others close to the property appear to have been heavily altered; however, they appear to be different house types and therefore are of limited relevance to the situation before me, and none are of front extensions projecting forward of established building lines. I therefore place little weight on these comparisons, and they do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

The property is not listed, is not in a conservation area, and no Article [address] in the locality. There would be no adverse impacts on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. These are not factors which weigh in favour of allowing the appeal and do not diminish the harm that I have found on the main issue. The appellant states that the proposal would improve their living environment, but this does not justify the harm I have found in this case.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.