Appeal 6001186

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development used in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice and submitted appeal form, for reasons of clarity and conciseness. I have however removed the reference to a previously approved application.

I am aware of a previously approved application at the appeal site (Ref: 25/0029/FULL6). The evidence before me outlines how the appeal differs from that application by virtue of the roof alterations, rear dormer and Juliet balcony, side rooflights and chimney.

On my site visit, construction was ongoing and much of the house was covered by scaffolding. However, I am satisfied that from the evidence before me that I can clearly see what the appeal property looked like before such works commenced.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed roof extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to a two-storey detached property on a cul-de-sac known as Brookside. Surrounding development comprises detached dwellings, generally of a similar size and style.

The site is located within the Knoll Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC). [name] is not specifically referenced in the area description in the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (BLP), it recognises it as one of the closes off [address]. The description outlines how [address] features typical detached two storey properties within substantial plots, featuring hip roofs with front or side pitched elevations.

Brookside slopes upwards from its access off [address] to the turning point at the top of Brookside. The ridge heights of the dwellings respond to the topography of the street, and as a result 2 Brookside (No.2) sits at a lower elevation than the appeal property, whilst 4 Brookside (No.4) sits at a higher elevation. This creates a strong sense of rhythm and harmony and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area, including the ASRC.

The proposed increase to the ridge height would result in it sitting noticeably higher than the roof ridge of No.4, despite the appeal property sitting at a lower level. This would disrupt the pattern of increasing ridge heights as you travel upwards along Brookside, from [address], and would appear out of keeping with surrounding development.

The proposal would also increase the overall bulk and massing of the roof, utilising a crown roof form and rear dormer, to accommodate additional accommodation. When considered together, the increased ridge height and enlarged roof would appear bulky and overly dominate within the street scene. In particular, the increased ridge height would detract from the sense of rhythm and harmony along the street.

The 45-degree pitch of the roof, the building line and the spacing between properties would be generally maintained. Proposed materials would also match the existing. Nonetheless, this would not offset the harm identified above. Whilst the site benefits from generous proportions, mature landscaping and off-street parking, the enlarged roof would be readily apparent, appearing visually jarring within the street scene.

The rear dormer may not be readily visible from the street scene, and the proposed works may also not be readily visible from the wider ASRC. Nonetheless, a lack of visibility does not equate to a lack of harm. Additionally, the proposed dormer must be considered cumulatively alongside the other proposed changes to the roof.

[name] acknowledge there is some minor variations in form, finish and detailing along Brookside, there is a general consistency in the decreasing ridge heights as you travel along Brookside towards [address]. Additionally, side extensions, porches or different materials are not directly comparable to a substantial roof extension. Whilst the appellant indicates that there are extended roof forms in the area, I have not been directed to any which permit a substantial increase in height.

Overall, for the reasons set out above, the scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, which includes the [name]. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the London Plan. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that respects and positively contributes to the street scene and surrounding area.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.