Appeal 6000336

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a bungalow which has a distinctive steeply pitched, hipped roof with gable features over bay windows either side of the door on the front elevation. It is situated on [address]: a residential cul-de-sac, the north side of which is characterised by two storey houses and bungalows of traditional detailing with hipped clay-tiled roofs.

The proposed roof extension would infill the gap between the two gables on the front elevation and would appear as a prominent addition to the building. The impact on the rear would be even more pronounced, where the roof extension would not be set back from the eaves.

Although the ridge height would remain unchanged and the front dormer set back from the eaves, the overall form of the proposal, which would have an almost flat roof, would be a visually intrusive alteration to the host building; out of character with it and discordant with the built form of the surrounding area. Given the set back to the building line of the adjacent property ([address]) the proposed roof extension would also be prominent in views of the appeal site from the east.

For these reasons, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan, 2019, 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 should enhance local context and respond 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 all development including extensions to existing buildings should ensure that roof forms relate to the character/form of the building, are proportionate in size, and appear as integral to its design.

The appellant has referred to a number of approved developments in the vicinity. Unlike the proposal before me, including those examples on [address], they maintain a traditional roof-form to the street frontage; whereas other examples serve to illustrate the difficulty of accommodating large roof extensions in a manner that does not have significant visual impacts. In any event, the fact that other dormers and roof extensions in the locality may have been permitted is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. As such, I attribute limited weight to any comparison with them, and they do not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue set out above.

Although the proposal would have no adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, including those of [address], this matter does not outweigh my findings in respect the effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

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.