Appeal 6001651

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.

Extensions to the front, side and rear were under construction at the time of my site visit. They appear to relate to planning approval Ref. DC/25/00571/FULL6. There is sufficient information available to make an informed assessment of the appeal scheme from both the plans and what I saw on site. The Council raised no concern regarding the front, side and rear extensions, the heat pump, pergola, elevation alterations and replacement windows. I find no reason to disagree with their conclusions thereon. My recommendation therefore focuses on the barn hipped roof and rear dormers. The main issue in regard to which is their effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a detached two storey dwelling in a small cul-de-sac. It is situated behind and accessed from [address], which includes a range of roof types. Notably, Number 38a (No. 38a) features a prominent barn hipped roof at the entrance to [address]. This is repeated on the detached garages and on the two storey front projections within the cul-de-sac, where the majority of properties within [address] have retained their unaltered hipped roof.

The proposed dormers’ widths would be modest, and they would be sited at the rear, set in from the sides and above the eaves. However, their position would be high within the roof slope, almost continuing from the main ridgeline. Their boxy and bulky massing would also appear as top heavy additions that would dominate and unacceptably contrast with the traditional and simple barn hipped roof.

The appeal site is not in a Conservation Area or an Area of Special Residential Character. Dormers are common in residential areas, and the ones here would not be visible from the front. Even so, due to their elevated position, views of them would be possible from the rear gardens and upper floors of nearby dwellings. Even if this were not so, their scale, design and siting would still be incongruous. I have not been provided with details of the other cited examples, which appear to vary in design and scale. Therefore, I cannot be sure that they represent a sufficient comparison to the appeal scheme, such that I would change my findings.

The proposed roof conversion would differ from the prevailing original hipped roofs of the cul-de-sac. However, the appeal building already features a distinctive barn hipped roof on its two storey front projection, and this roof style is present throughout the close and at No. 38a. It would therefore integrate well with the existing roof forms. Although it would create a wider mass, it would not appear significantly larger than the widened hipped roof that has been approved and mostly constructed. The increase in ridge height would also be modest, and from the side elevations, the roof plane would be broadly consistent with the original. The proposed barn hipped roof would therefore relate well to the mixed roof forms of the surrounding area and would complement the host dwelling.

That said, the rear dormers would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. They would be contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019, Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021, and the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023. Together, and amongst other things, these require all development proposals to be of a high standard of design.

The proposal would meet the occupants’ need for additional space. However, there is no sufficiently conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the this need cannot be met by alternative means, which might have a lesser impact than the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

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