Appeal 6002152

The appeal is dismissed.

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 development comprises a first floor extension, two storey rear extension and elevational alterations to create two storey dwelling, and hip to gable extension to No [address] to allow for neighbouring extension. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The plans submitted with the appeal documentation contain an error in the site address. Both parties were consulted and agree that this was a typographical error and that the address outlined above, accurately reflects the correct site address for the proposed development.

The main issues are:

the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and

whether the proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers having regard to the provision of private amenity space and acceptable standards of accommodation.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached two-storey dwelling and a single-storey converted garage, which benefits from a lawful development certificate for use as a single dwellinghouse. The character of the immediate area is predominantly formed by semi-detached two-storey dwellings, all of a similar design, form and appearance, and often with single storey attached garages. The western side of [address], including the host properties, is particularly consistent in this character.

[name] Planning Document (the [name]) states at DG5 ([name]) that rooflines should reflect the rhythm, harmony and scale of the street frontage, particularly in areas where a consistent roofline and form contribute to local character. The Design SPD also advises that extensions and alterations to existing dwellings should respond to local character and appear subservient in scale.

The proposed extensions would be of a significant scale and would create a terrace of three dwellings. This would be inconsistent with the prevailing character and grain of residential development in the immediate area and would result in an unbalancing effect on the form of the existing dwellings. Moreover, the proposal would not appear subservient to the existing buildings.

The extension, due to its location, would be a highly prominent feature within the street scene and would appear dominant and incongruous in relation to the host buildings, and therefore would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host properties and the wider area. The consistent use of design details including materials and fenestrations would not lessen this harm.

My attention has been drawn to other development in the locality and more specifically to [address]. However, in assessing the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the host building and the wider area, I find that the site context and individual circumstances are not comparable to the appeal scheme before me. I have therefore assessed the proposal on its own merits.

For these reasons, I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the requirements of Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) and Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) (LP) which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development positively contributes to the street scene, complements the scale, proportion, form, and layout of adjacent buildings, with due regard to existing building types. It would also conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework where it seeks development that is sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment.

Policy D6 of the LP prescribes minimum internal and outside space standards for new dwellings. There would be no direct access from No 90a to the rear private amenity space. Even though the minimum standards for private outside space may have been met, its shape and location with no direct access would make it unattractive for sitting out or relaxation and would lack the spaciousness typically associated with gardens intended for personal enjoyment.

The proposal seeks permission for a two-bed, three-person, two-storey dwelling. As such, the minimum gross internal floor space should be [address] metres (sqm). The evidence indicates that the gross internal floor space would be significantly below this figure and would fail to provide any built-in storage as outlined in Table 3.1- Minimum internal space standards for new dwellings within Policy D6, Chapter 3 (Design) of the LP. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would fail to provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupiers, particularly in terms of acceptable internal space standards and the provision of private outside space.

On the second main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposal would conflict with Policy 37 of the BLP, insofar as it relates to standards of accommodation, and Policy D6 of the LP, which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that development provides adequate internal and outside space.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.