Appeal 6002318

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing detached double garage, existing first floor front projection with dormer extension, and existing rear dormer. Construction of two storey side extension, a single storey front extension, rear dormers and elevational alterations, and enlargement of existing rear dormers and alteration of rear dormers from flat roof to pitch roof at [site address] , Bromley, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04449/HPA, subject to the following conditions:

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 drawing nos Location Plan 23_94-PL-01. [name] 23_94-PL-04. [name] 23_94-PL-08. Existing Block Plan 23_94-PL-101. [name] and First Floor Plan 23_94-PL-03. Proposed Block Plan 23_94-PL-102 [name]. [name] and Elevations 23_94-PL-103 [name].

The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

An application for an award of costs against the Council is the subject of a separate decision.

The description of development in the banner heading above is one agreed by the main parties during the application.

Of the various elements of the appeal scheme, the Council objects solely to the proposed two-storey side extension. I see no reason to take a different view. As such, the main issue is the effect of that particular element of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area.

The appeal site includes a residential dwelling (the dwelling). Many nearby homes on [address] and [address] are similar in design to their immediate neighbours, creating a consistent and uniform appearance to the different parts of those streets. The dwelling, in contrast, is set back from the road to the degree that it is only partially visible from it at most. Its design is not one that any other nearby houses replicate. It is, in those respects, a property entirely apart from its surroundings, with very little direct visual relationship to neighbouring houses.

The dwelling, though apparently at one stage a simple bungalow, is now unmistakably a two-storey, chalet-style home as illustrated by upper floor windows across the front elevation. A relatively long private drive leads to it through tall gates, and continues onwards past the dwelling to a detached garage. The front door is highlighted by a large and slightly incongruous faux classical porch. A reasonable sized back garden is found behind, with further garden land accessed by way of a private footbridge over the [name]. It is unremarkable architecturally, save for a somewhat cluttered and inconsistent feel created by a series of unrelated additions. The dwelling is neither small, nor quaint. If it was once modest in character, then little of that remains now.

The proposed side extension would increase the width of the dwelling from some 16.5m to 21.5m. This is a reasonably significant increase and would give the dwelling a more imposing presence. That, however, would not be at odds with the size and nature of the site as described above. Moreover, whereas the existing cat-slide roof, large flat roofed front dormer, and slightly incongruous porch combine to give the dwelling a somewhat cluttered and inconsistent appearance, the appeal scheme would make the dwelling more architecturally complete and coherent.

The southernmost end of the dwelling would be brought closer to the boundary by the appeal scheme, filling much of an existing gap in that direction. That said, the gap is not undeveloped at present; It is occupied by a detached outbuilding with a tall, pitched roof that occupies much of the gap both physically and visually. Though not as large or tall as the proposed extension, the outbuilding is positioned closer to the boundary. It also runs parallel to it, thereby extending built development all but to the edge of the site.

Though the extension would be taller and more prominent than the outbuilding, it would nevertheless occupy an area that is already developed. It would leave only a small gap to the boundary at its corners but, overall, serve to pull built form further back from it than at present. South of the site is open garden land which gives, and would continue to give, the setting for the dwelling a spacious feel. The gap between the dwelling and the nearest boundary to its north is not especially large, and the appearance of the dwelling does not suffer for it. Taking all of this into consideration, I am content that the extension would not appear cramped within the site.

I appreciate that the [name] Planning Document (SPD) seeks extensions that appear subservient in scale to their host. Even if I were to view the appeal scheme extension as greater than subservient, the SPD is clear that its aim is to avoid additions that have a detrimental impact on character and amenity. I have set out above that this would not be the case in terms of the host dwelling. Given this, as well as the stand-alone nature of the dwelling in the local area and the limited degree to which it is visible from the public realm, I am content that it would also not harm the character or appearance of the local area. I find no conflict, therefore, with Policies D3 of the London Plan, or with Policies 6, 8 or 37 of the Bromley Local Plan.

The site adjoins the Shortlands Village Conservation Area (the CA). The Council does not contend that the proposed development would affect the setting of the CA and, based on the very limited degree to which the site is visible from the public sphere, I see no reason to take a different approach.

I have taken third party comments made during the planning application into account. The Council considers that the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect in terms of loss of neighbouring privacy or outlook. I see no reason to disagree with the assessment made by the Council. Any dispute over land near the boundary between the appeal site and the neighbouring property to the south is a private civil issue.

To meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement. I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. A condition is necessary for materials to match those used on the existing house to maintain the character and appearance of the dwelling.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.