Appeal 6000408

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for [name] windows to front roof slope at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00773/FULL6, and subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] & Block Plan ([name]. 001), Proposed / [name] ([name]. 204) ([name]), Proposed / [name] ([name]. 205) ([name]), Existing & Proposed / As Built Roof Plan ([name]. 207) ([name]).

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, "[name] windows to front roof slope (RETROSPECTIVE)". I have used this description in my consideration of the appeal since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms.

The proposed development is already in place and I shall deal with the appeal on this basis. However, ‘retrospective’ is not an act of development, and this has been reflected in the formal decision, above.

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

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 22), a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling of inter-war construction with traditional materials, which has previously been extended. Nearby dwellings are generally also of inter-war construction where the use of similar materials and architectural styles to No 22 is evident.

No 22 is located within the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC). 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.

The other half of the semi-detached pair, [address] (No 24), has one front roof light, which is visible from the footway opposite the site. 2 roof lights, present on the front roof slope of [address] opposite the site, are also visible in the street scene. A further front roof light is present on [address], near to the site. These roof lights were installed prior to the introduction of the Article 4 Direction referred to by the Council, and before the introduction of the current Local Plan. Nevertheless, they are established features of the street scene and as such form part of the context within which the development is experienced. This is in contrast to appeal decision [name]/G5180/D/22/3304002 and APP/G5180/D/22/3291542, where the Inspectors did not specifically identify the presence of roof lights on similarly-designed dwellings near to their respective appeal sites.

The installed roof lights at No 22 are restrained in terms of their size and scale. Their siting near to the ridge of the roof and close to No 22’s front gable ensures that they appear as a limited intervention into the roof slope. As such, the visual prominence of No 22’s front catslide roof and tile hung gable remain. The architectural integrity of the host property has been preserved.

Moreover, due to the presence of the similarly-styled roof lights on [address] in close proximity to the site (described above), including that at No 24, the roof lights appear in-keeping with the rhythm and pattern of dwellings in the street scene, including with No 24. This is in contrast to the Inspector’s findings in appeal decision [name]/G5180/D/19/3222670, where the imbalance caused to the pair of semi-detached dwellings on The Covert was a significant factor in the Inspector’s decision. Taking all of the above into account, and noting that whilst post-war alterations to the roofs of dwellings within the ASRC are uncommon, they are not unknown, in this particular case the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC have been enhanced.

I therefore find that the development has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It complies 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 positively contribute to the existing street scene and / or landscape and respect important views, heritage assets, skylines, landmarks or landscape features.

The development complies with Policy 44 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposed in areas designated as ASRCs on the policies map will be required to respect, enhance and strengthen their special and distinctive qualities.

I have considered the need for conditions in accordance with the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance. As the development has been carried out I have omitted the standard time limit and materials conditions, as these are no longer necessary. A condition is necessary specifying the approved plans, to provide certainty with respect to the development applied for (condition 1).

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

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.