Appeal 6000809

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed front solar roof. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed alterations to rear extension, roof, new door to garage and loft conversion incorporating solar roof to side and rear at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03293/HPA, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the alterations to rear extension, roof, new door to garage and loft conversion and solar roof to the side and rear: Location Plan, 25005 – 06, 25005 - 05, 25005 - 01, 25005 – 07 and 25005 – 08.

The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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 whether the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Broadoaks Conservation Area

The appeal site consists of [site address] a two-storey semi-detached property situated within a leafy suburb. The site is within the Broadoaks Conservation Area (the CA). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at s72(1) that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The Broadoaks Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Guidance (BCASPG) explains that the significance of the conservation area is characterised by its open green spaces between properties inspired by the garden city movement. Properties are set in spacious plots and share several common design elements that lend cohesion to the estate. All employ small red clay roofing tiles that model the Kent vernacular. Considerable use of the same tiles is made in wall hanging, again adapting a Kent tradition. Most roofs have marked hips: the gable is only present as a subsidiary decorative feature above bay windows or garage entrances. Roofscape is the dominant element of the estate as a result. It is this spatial composition and architectural quality that shapes the significance of the CA. As a property positioned centrally within the street scene, the appeal site occupies a visually prominent position in the street scene and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA.

Despite the proposed panels’ low profile, the cumulative large scale of the solar panels would conceal a substantial proportion of the front roof slope and so would have a prominent appearance. This is particularly the case when combined with their modern material which would detract from the traditional roof material. The arrangement, in both horizontal and vertical orientations, would appear random and irregular, particularly when read in conjunction with the proposed rooflights.

Whilst due to their elevated position they would not be highly perceptible from the pavement directly in front of the appeal dwelling, the front elevation is highly visible from the opposite side of the highway in the approach from both directions on Pickhurst Park. In these views the introduction of numerous solar panels to the appeal dwellings most prominent elevation would detract from its uniformed character when read in conjunction with the dwellings in the surrounding area.

The proposed rear dormer would sit comfortably within the appeal dwelling’s rear roof slope due to it being set up from the eaves, down from the ridge and in from the side of the roof. In this respect the dormer would appear as a subservient well-proportioned addition to the appeal dwellings rear roof slope. Furthermore, whilst I note that dormers are not a typical characteristic of rear roof slopes, they are a prominent design feature within the CA and, in line with the guidance set out in the BCASPG, the proposal would respond positively to this design precedent and be sited to an appropriate elevation.

Turning to the solar panels to the side and rear elevations these would cover a sizeable proportion of their respective roof slopes. Nevertheless, their proposed dark and muted appearance set against the weathered roof tiles as well as their siting on two less prominent elevations would ensure that they would not appear as prominent additions to the dwelling.

Moreover, due to their siting on the two least prominent elevations, views of the proposals would be limited to short range views in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. In these views, the key architectural features of the appeal dwelling, including its overall architectural style, hipped roof form, and use of distinctive roof tiles, are evident. As such, its contribution towards the significance of the conservation area as a whole would be preserved in this respect.

The proposed solar roof to the front elevation would subsequently detract from the heritage significance of the CA. In the context of the Framework, the level of harm would be less than substantial but nonetheless important and at the upper end thereof, given the negative effects of these works on both the character and appearance of one of these key buildings in the CA. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I note the benefits of the proposal outlined by the appellant including but not limited to improved energy efficiency to the dwelling. However, I consider this to be a public benefit of limited weight given the scale of the development.

The public benefits would therefore be limited. Given the degree of harm, I have found that would arise from the solar panels to the front and the statutory protection afforded to Conservation Areas, such benefits are not sufficient to outweigh it. This would conflict with Policies 6, 37 and 41 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the guidance within the Council’s Urban Design Guide SPD. These all seek, amongst other things, for development to be expected to positively contribute to the existing street scene and/or landscape and respect important views, heritage assets, skylines, landmarks or landscape features.

In addition, for the reasons set out the proposed alterations to the rear extension, roof, new door to garage, loft conversion and solar roof to the side and rear would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Broadoaks Conservation Area. Thus, according with Policies 6, 37 and 41 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the guidance within the Council’s Urban Design Guide SPD which all seek amongst other things for development to preserve and enhance the conservation area.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary. This is in the interests of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the host property, it is necessary to impose a planning condition requiring the use of matching materials.

The two aspects of the development identified above are clearly severable. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.