Appeal 6000617

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed front dormer extensions on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] exhibits a mix of architectural styles and detailing, but its local distinctiveness is derived from the consistent scale, simple roof form, and the relationship of buildings to the natural topography. Properties are predominantly detached dwellings of modest proportions, set on elevated land, with roof designs that remain clearly legible and visually balanced. Alterations and extensions within the area generally respect this character by remaining subservient to the host building and by preserving the original roof form.

The appeal proposal is to raise the ridge height to incorporate a half-hipped roof, with two dormers on the front elevation and a box dormer on the rear elevation. The proposed front dormers, each containing two windows, would be of substantial width and would appear incongruous on the main roof. Although the appellant contends that the dormers are proportionate in size to the front roof plane, their excessive width would result in bulky additions, and the presence of two such large dormers would dominate the front roof plane. As a result, the proposal would erode the legibility of the original roof form. Their height, extending almost to the ridge, would also make them visually prominent.

The harm would be further exacerbated by the elevated position of the site and the clear visibility of the roofscape from public vantage points along [site address] . The proposal therefore would introduce an unduly prominent and incongruous roof form that would fail to respect the prevailing character of development or the local distinctiveness of the area. Consequently, the appeal proposal would fail to follow the design-led approach to enhance the local context.

At my site visit, I observed a variety of roof alterations and extensions. However, they follow different architectural approaches and are generally less prominent, thereby preserving the form of the original roof. I note that there are blocks of three storey buildings adjacent to the appeal site. Nevertheless, these are flatted blocks designed to different architectural concepts.

The proposal would increase the internal accommodation available within the property. However, this does not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) that requires all development to be of high architectural quality which respects, contributes to and enhances the local environment and character of the area. It also would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021), which requires development to follow a design-led approach that enhances the local context.

The Council does not raise any objections to the proposal, in terms of the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, compliance with the development plan in this respect is a neutral factor and not a benefit of the proposal.

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.