Appeal 6002004

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with the erection of a dormer window on the side roof and a dormer on the rear. Insertion of two conservation style roof lights on the front slope and one on the side slope, at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04203/HPA, subject to the following

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 the following approved plans: Location Plan, PP-14306352v1; Site Location (SITE); Ground Floor Plan (Prop) - 2025-434-02 [name]; First Floor Plan (Prop) - 2025-434-03 [name]; Loft Room Plan - 2025-434-04 [name]; Front & [name] - 2025-434-08 [name]; Rear & [name] - 2025-434- 07 [name]; Section (Prop) - 2025-434-06-[name].

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the approved plans.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the proposed development comprises a loft conversion comprising of side dormer extension and rear dormer extension with conservation style roof lights on the front slope and side roof slopes, and elevational alterations including replacement roof tiles. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The appeal proposal includes a rear dormer extension and rooflights which do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal. The Council’s officer report does not identify any conflict with development plan policy in these respects. Following my site visit, I see no reason to disagree.

The appellant’s name was incorrectly spelt on the original application form. I have sought confirmation from the main parties and the appellant’s name, above, is correct.

In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The main issue is whether the proposal (side dormer) preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site lies within the Beckenham Town Centre CA. The significance of the CA as a whole is framed by its historic, architectural, and townscape value, which clearly illustrates the transformation of Beckenham from a small rural village into a prosperous Victorian and Edwardian suburban town following the arrival of the railway in the 19th century. The area contains a notable concentration of late 19th‐ and early 20th‐century commercial, civic, and institutional buildings, many of which retain original architectural features.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached two-storey Edwardian brick-built dwelling on a corner plot fronting Kelsey Park Road and lying adjacent to [address]. As part of a coherent and attractive street scene, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

My attention has been drawn to a number of examples of dormer windows within the CA. During my site visit I was able to observe these and other examples of front and side dormers on buildings, including the [name] building immediately opposite the appeal site, and Beckenham Public Hall, a little further away on [address]. Taking the wider context of the CA, dormer windows fronting the highway are an inherent part of the area’s character, being particularly plentiful along the [address].

I acknowledge that the majority of the roofscape across properties in Kelsey Park Road is uninterrupted and of uniform appearance and that front or side dormer windows are not a common characteristic of this part of the CA. However, the scale of the proposed dormer responds to traditional styles apparent locally and is of a size proportionate to the roof plane. It would also be positioned below the roof ridge, well above the eaves, and inset sufficiently so as not to be obtrusive when viewed in the wider context or result in harmful visual clutter.

I do not consider that the proposal would set a negative precedent for similar development to come forward in the local area. Each proposal must be judged on its individual merits and furthermore, this is an individual building with an irregular and asymmetrical shape. The proposed dormer would not appear imbalanced or prominent in this context, and the host building would continue to read as a semi-detached Edwardian dwelling, maintaining its contribution to the high-quality townscape in this part of the CA.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area. As such, it would accord with Policies D3 and HC1 of The London Plan (2021), Policies 6, 37, and 41 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), and the guidance set out in the Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area Statement (2020), which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that proposals respect or complement the layout, scale, form and materials of existing buildings and spaces and thereby secure the preservation or enhancement of conservation areas.

In addition to the statutory time limit for implementation, a condition setting out the approved plans and materials is necessary to provide certainty and preserve the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.