Appeal 6002768

The appeal is dismissed in so far as it relates to the part demolition of the single storey side extension and erection of an additional storey at first floor level, the erection of a single storey side extension and roof alterations to incorporate a side roof dormer. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted in so far as it relates to alterations to the rear façade and the installation of a rooflight within the existing rear sloping roof and the provision of a low-level structure to the front of the property for bin and cycle storage and to house air source heat pump at [address], Bromley, Beckenham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, 25/03741/HPA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans in so far as they relate to the development hereby permitted: 424-A-01-100 rev P01; 424-A-01-105 rev P02.

In the interest of clarity and brevity I have amended the description of development provided in the banner heading above. The amendments include the omission of the reference to internal remodelling which does not constitute development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the [address] Area of Special Residential Character.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house with a long rear garden and a hard surfaced forecourt at the front. It is bounded to the side by an access road that leads to the [name] and the [name]. It forms part of a large group ofsemi-detached houses of largely identical symmetrical form and appearance that feature decorative porches, canted bays, hipped roofs, and prominent front dormers. This gives this part of the [address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) a very unified character and appearance, a matter to which I attach significant weight.

The property features a single-storey side extension and recently a Lawful Development Certificate has been issued for development described as “Single storey rear/side extension, hip to gable loft conversion with replacement rear dormer and rear rooflights and elevational alterations”1.

The proposal would include the part demolition of the side addition and the erection of a 2-storey side addition with a crown roof. Due to its height and the exposed nature of the side of the appeal property this extension would be a prominent feature in the street scene that would also materially disrupt the symmetrical arrangement of the appeal property and its attached neighbour and denude the overall uniformity of the group. These impacts would be exacerbated by the installation of a dormer within the side roof slope of the house above the side extension.

For these reasons I conclude that due to their height, size and siting the side extension and dormer would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the ASRC. As such these aspects of the proposal fail to comply with Policies 8 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) which, amongst other matters, seek the retention of side spaces and extensions that are compatible with development in the surrounding area. There is also conflict with BLP Policy 44, which requires development in ASRCs to respect, enhance and strengthen the special and distinctive qualities of such areas, and the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) which seeks the reinforcement of local character and identity.

The proposal would also include the erection of a narrow single-storey side extension behind the proposed 2-storey element, a cycle/bin/ASHP enclosure at the front of the property and alterations to the rear elevation. I am satisfied that these elements would not result in the harm identified above and they therefore accord with the aforementioned policies. As the latter 2 elements are clearly physically and functionally separate from the side 2-storey side extension a split decision can be made allowing these aspects of the proposal.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, a condition requiring the approved development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings 1 Application ref: 25/03551/LDC is imposed in addition to the standard time limit condition. The materials to be used for the elements that have been permitted are identified on the application drawings and therefore a materials condition is not necessary.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail in respect of the proposed additions to the property and should succeed in respect of the enclosure at the front and alterations to the rear.