Appeal 6002085

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing conservatory and construction of side and rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer and 3x rooflights (revision to approved planning applications 22/00988/FULL6 and 23/02601/FULL6 to now include alterations to main front door, garage doors, bi-folding doors and glazed panels) (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) at [site address] , Bromley, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/03203/FULL6.

As the description above implies the history shows that the property has been subject to previous planning permissions, which have been implemented but not fully in accordance with the approved plans. The appellant therefore seeks to vary the permissions granted with additional or varied features, which have already been built or put in place. The Council has no objection to most of the additional or varied features, but considers the front door and its enlarged opening, as built, to be unacceptable having regard to the property’s siting within the Shortlands Village Conservation Area (CA).

The new front door is of a modern design, and the cill or steps at the entry has been removed. The appellant says that the removal of the steps was warranted on the basis that a level entrance was necessary to facilitate level access for a family member described as having ‘severe mobility difficulties, and for his partially sighted mother. The appellant considers that this aspect should have been taken into account by the Council, which is thus considered by him to have failed to properly apply the Public Sector Equality Duty under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. I address this matter later in the decision letter.

The main issue is whether the front door and its enlarged opening as built have preserved or enhanced the character or appearance of the CA and, if not, the consequences of a refusal of planning permission for the appellant’s family.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set alongside similar development in ribbon fashion on the north-eastern frontage of [address]. The CA’s boundary encompasses the properties along the same street frontage towards the station south-eastwards, whilst directly opposite the appeal property stands a verdant railway embankment. The designation includes all development on the same frontage as the appeal property for a considerable distance northward. However, all housing development on the opposite side of [address] is excluded from the CA apart from a short stretch of dwellings from No 75 to the junction with Downs Hill, a short walking distance from the appeal property.

The newly fixed door is of a modern and not unacceptable design, but at odds with the predominant design of most front doors in the vicinity of the appeal property. That being said, the front doors of the pair immediately northward of the appeal site cannot readily be seen from the street since they are enclosed by a porch. Another porch obscures the doors at another semi-detached property a short distance to the south-east, albeit it this is a more modern infill pair than is common in this part of the Avenue.

I saw that steps were common in this part of the street, some still complete with ventilation grills. Its removal means that the door hangs differently in the doorway making it appear imbalanced and asymmetrical when put into context with the adjoining dwelling.

The appellant points to the existence of several doors, similar in design to his, which appear in the doorways of dwellings within the CA on the other side of the street. Most were fitted, according to the Council, prior to the CA’s designation, whilst one was granted permission after the designation because it related to a more modern form of house. It strikes me, however, that the existence of the doors did not deter the Council from including these dwellings within the designated area, and the modern doors are within easy striking distance and visual range of the appeal property.

On balance, I conclude that the appellant’s door, having particular regard to the existence of other similar doors in the vicinity of the site within the CA has not harmed the character and appearance of the CA. However, the enlarged doorway opening and the removal of the step has caused localised visual harm, albeit that it is minor in extent. It is the type of minor development that could be repeated too often causing aggravated, cumulative harm. A conflict therefore arises with those provisions of policies 37 and 41 of the Bromley Local Plan and policy HC1 of the London Plan providing that all new development should avoid harm and contribute positively to the street scene and that the character or appearance of conservation areas be preserved or enhanced.

In terms of the applicable test in the National Planning Policy Framework, I find the level of harm to be less than substantial when set against the significance of the heritage asset. I have not been made aware of what I would regard as any public benefit arising from the development.

Further information was sought from the parties on issues relating to disability following my site visit. As a result, I am satisfied that two members of the appellant’s family display protected characteristics namely disability and/or impairment. It also appears to me that these are substantial and not short term in nature and in their effects.

The removal of the step from the doorway inevitably assists with mobility, and the family members’ ability to more appropriately enter and leave the house, given that the alternative, through a mostly shut utility/storage area appears tortuous and awkward. It follows that a refusal of permission would in all probability result in the step being re-instituted, with a consequent and disadvantageous impact on mobility for the persons concerned. I consider the continued absence of the step would be a reasonable adjustment to enable those affected family members to live their lives without substantial disadvantage. This factor attracts substantial weight in my deliberations.

On balance, when weighed in the balance against the minor level of harm found to the character and appearance of the CA caused by the removal of the step, I find that the long-term interests of the appellant’s family members should prevail. I shall therefore allow the appeal. Since the development is substantially complete, no conditions are necessary.

In arriving at this decision, I have taken account of the invited representations on the disability issue from both principal parties, including copy letters of complaint as to the Council’s handling of his application sent by the appellant to the Council. I make no comment on the appellant’s complaints which are matters for the Council to consider, and nor will I enter any debate as to who said what to whom and when during the determination of the appellant’s several dealings with the Council. [name] would say, is that the documentation for the original application leading to this appeal made available to me, contains no reference that I have seen to the appellant’s family’s disabilities. I can therefore understand why the Council did not consider disability issues when making its decision on the application.

On consultation, The Ravensbourne Valley Residents Association (RA) objected to the main front door and its step, which I have already dealt with, and separately, to the doors serving the ‘garage’. However, the plans show the doors as serving not a garage but a utility/storage area. The Council did not share the RA’s concern that this part of the development would appear harmful when the ‘garage’ doors were open, and I have no good reason not to share the Council’s stance.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the references to the National Planning Policy Framework and the [name]. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading me to my conclusions.