Appeal 6000885

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer and 3 front rooflights and alterations to 2 existing first floor windows at [site address] , [site address] , Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03456/HPA, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25017-01, 25017-02, 25017-03, 25017-04, 25017-07 and 25017-08 and unnumbered location plan.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the following materials: a) pitched roof in tiles to match existing; b) gable end wall in white render to match existing; c) walls of the dormer in grey zinc cladding.

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

Number 72 (No. 72) is a two-storey semi-detached property located at the end of residential development along [address], adjacent to the [site address] town centre. It has a two-storey side extension positioned close to the shared boundary with Number 74 (No. 74), a GP surgery. A hipped roof extends across the width of the property. The other property in the pair, Number 70, has a hip to gable roof extension but no side extension. The pair of semi-detached properties are therefore not symmetrical or uniform in appearance.

The proposal would alter the existing hip to a gable end above the existing two-storey addition with a large rear dormer. In combination with the existing extension, it would increase the bulk of the building. However, it would create a more balanced appearance to these semi-detached properties at roof level, adding a degree of uniformity although with a more extensive roof to No. 72. In doing so, it would not appear as an incompatible addition to the building.

The roof-level gap between Nos. 72 and 74 would be reduced. However, the extension would neither compete with nor detract from the character of No. 74 which is a prominent detached property, distinguished by its large front-facing gable and tall chimneys on the side adjacent to the appeal site. Its main roof and chimneys would remain visible from the surrounding area. Moreover, the appeal property is located close to the denser and taller development around the town centre and the extension when viewed in this context would not appear unduly bulky, as a cramped form of development or incongruous.

Compared to other examples of dormers in the locality the proposal would be less visible when viewed from the street. However, it would be prominent in views from the walkway from the car park to the rear of Sainsburys supermarket, located just beyond No. 74. The use of white render to the gable end would integrate it with the existing building. However, a render finish to the dormer walls would be less compatible with the existing roof and would draw attention to the dormer. The Council has indicated a preference for the extension to be tile hung; the appellant has offered zinc cladding as an alternative. I consider that the appellant’s preferred choice of zinc cladding would make it reasonably unobtrusive and would be acceptable in this instance. I have imposed a condition to secure this and the use of other materials within the development to ensure a satisfactory appearance.

The proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, which together require a high quality of design that respects the host property, is compatible with surrounding development and positively contributes to the existing streetscene.

Two first floor windows in the flank wall of the side addition would be replaced by a single window. This window would be obscurely glazed and raised more than 1.7 metres above finished floor level. This would prevent overlooking of windows within No. 74. However, as these windows are already overlooked by the existing openable windows on this elevation, a condition securing this is not reasonable.

The Council has not specified any additional conditions within its appeal submissions. In addition to the materials condition referred to above, I have imposed the standard time limit condition for commencement of development and a condition specifying the approved drawings in the interest of certainty.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.