Appeal 6000738

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The host dwelling is a two-storey, mid-terrace house typical of development in the surrounding area. The street scene generally consists of short bookend terraces where the mid-terraces have flat roofed two-storey bay windows, and the end terraces have front gabled two-storey bay windows.

The terraces typically consist of red brick and white pebbledash principal elevations, tiled roofs, and front porches with tiled roofs and white-painted timber overhangs with a repeating cutout design. Pebbledash and brick chimney stacks evenly spaced along each terrace add interest and regularity to the flat roof forms. Whilst there are a few front dormers on the street, they do not contribute to the established pattern of development which is predominantly characterised by a largely undeveloped roofscape. Cumulatively, this gives the area a uniform character and appearance and a strong rhythm.

The proposed front dormer would be incongruous with the host dwelling and surrounding area. Although set down from the ridge and set in from the sides, the proposal would interrupt the undeveloped roofscape and be discordant with the uniform street scene. Appeal Planning Officer 6000738

The siting of the proposal on the principal elevation would appear prominent from the highway. It would draw the eye, detracting from the porches, bay windows, and chimney stacks that comprise the distinctive character of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposal would therefore not be subservient to the host dwelling, conflicting with the [name] Planning Document (SPD) (2023) by significantly changing the appearance of the property and disrupting the strong rhythm of the street scene.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of existing front dormers on the Drive. Whilst there are front dormers on [address], there are not many, and they do not contribute to the character and appearance of the area which is defined by a primarily undeveloped roofscape. As such, the existence of front dormers on the street does not outweigh the harm that would be caused by this proposal on the distinctive and uniform street scene.

Whilst the appellant has referenced the Council suggesting there are no legal concerns regarding the proposed development, this does not overcome the harm I have identified in relation to the incongruity and prominence of the proposal.

For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and the SPD. Together these seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style and form, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment.

The appellant has referenced an application that was granted planning permission on [address], suggesting its similarity to this proposal. However, that application relates to a proposed rear dormer and as this appeal relates to a proposed front dormer, I have given this matter limited weight in my considerations.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.