Appeal 6001281

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development used in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice, for reasons of clarity. This description accurately describes the proposed development.

The Council’s refusal reason focusses on the effect of the proposed side dormers.

The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed side dormers on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, including the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).

The appeal property relates to a two-storey detached dwelling. The surrounding area is predominately characterised by detached and semi-detached two storey dwellings, some of which benefit from accommodation in the roof. There is some variation in the size and style of the dwellings, however there is consistency in the building lines and separation between properties. This creates a sense of spaciousness and contributes positively to the character of the area.

The site is situated within the [site address] ASRC. The London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (BLP) outlines how the area has an open, suburban and semi-rural feel. It goes on to discuss how the separation between buildings and the rhythm and pattern of the houses adds to the special character of the area.

Although the proposed dormers would be recessed from the front and rear elevations, they would still occupy a significant proportion of the side roof slopes. There would also be minimal space left between the dormers and the existing roof ridge. The overall size of the dormers would result in a top heavy and bulky appearance. They would lack subservience and dominate the side roof slopes, appearing as an unduly prominent feature within the street scene.

A barn hip design and matching materials would be used. Nonetheless, these measures would not adequately offset the dominance of the dormers. Whilst the proposal would maintain separation to the side boundary, the increased scale and massing of the dwelling would somewhat erode the sense of spaciousness and openness experienced in the area.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of barn hip roofs, and other roof alterations in the area. However, most of the examples provided relate to half hipped roof alterations to the main roof, which appear cohesive and relate well to the main roof. These are not directly comparable to two substantial roof dormers. The examples at what looks to be 63 and 65 [name], based on the aerial imagery before me, appear to be of a reduced depth, in comparison to the dormers proposed under this appeal. I acknowledge that the properties at 71 and 76 [name] benefit from various roof alterations, however rather than providing justification for the development in question, if anything, their presence points to a need for such proposals to be carefully controlled to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

Additionally, whilst I acknowledge the presence of roof alterations in the area, including alterations that differentiate one pair of semi-detached properties from its adjoining neighbour, I do not know the circumstances under which they were constructed or their status with regard to planning permission. I therefore cannot draw any direct comparisons between such alterations and the proposal that would weigh in its favour. The presence of such developments does not overcome the harm I have identified, nor does it justify the development.

Overall, for the above reasons, the proposed side dormers would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, which includes the ASRC. It would be contrary to Policies 6 and 37 of the BLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that complements the host dwellings and positively contributes to the street scene. It would also fail to accord with Policy 44 of the BLP which seeks to ensure that development within ASRCs respects, enhances or strengthens their special and distinctive qualities.

Whilst the scheme may accord with certain criterion of Policy 37 of the BLP, it would fail to comply with the policy as a whole, for the reasons set out above. I however find no conflict with Policy D4 of the LP. This policy sets out the processes and actions, such as visual modelling assessments, to ensure development delivers good design.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application, which include previously requesting amendments and indicating that the scheme would be recommended for approval, amongst other things. [name] acknowledge that this would be frustrating for the appellant, it is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal. It does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The host building is not listed and the site is not located within a conservation area. The scheme would not result in harm to neighbouring amenity. No objections were received from Council officers with regards to highways, drainage, environmental health, trees or other perspectives. These are however considered neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal. Apart from an objection from the [site address] & District Resident’s Association, no other third-party representations were received. This however does not outweigh the harm identified.

I acknowledge that the scheme would create additional bedroom space for the appellants. However, I have not been given demonstrable evidence to indicate that the appeal scheme is the only or least harmful way of satisfying a need or desire for additional space. The benefits of the proposed development to the household are weighed against other material considerations, including relevant local and national planning policies. I therefore consider that the harm that would be caused by the proposed development clearly outweighs the needs of or benefits to the appellants, and it is proportionate in the circumstances to dismiss the appeal.

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 is dismissed.