Appeal 6003434

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposals on: (i) the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house with a hipped roof, an attached garage to the side and a long garden to the rear. It is situated in a residential street comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached houses of similar age and appearance. These houses benefit from long rear gardens and face the grounds of a college opposite, which gives [address] a spacious and verdant character.

The property forms part of a group of 6 semi-detached houses ([address]) which would have had a similar form and appearance when originally built. Most notably each pair of houses has a symmetrically arranged pair of gables at the front and a predominately hipped roof. Apart from the appeal property all 6 houses now incorporate 2-storey side additions. Nos 58 and 60 have been extended in such a way as to ensure the symmetrical arrangement of the street frontage and roof is retained whereas the side extension to No 54 has disrupted the original symmetry of this pair due to the incorporation of a second gable at the front.

The appeal proposal would include the demolition of the garage and its replacement with a 2-storey side extension that would extend beyond the rear building line and partly wraparound the existing rear elevation of the house. This would result in an expanded roof form with a gable at the front and a box dormer would be accommodated within the rear roof slope. In addition, the proposal would involve the erection of a single storey rear extension that would occupy the full width of the rear elevation of the expanded house.

In terms of its footprint the proposed 2-storey side addition would largely replicate the arrangement at No. 52, the attached neighbour. However, it would be at odds with No. 52 in respect of its design. In particular the gable would be an incongruous feature that would disrupt the symmetry of the pair of houses and therefore harm the appearance of the host building and have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The effect on the surroundings would be exacerbated by the formation of a large box dormer in the rear roof slope. This would be a wholly alien feature in this context which is almost entirely devoid of large roof level additions.

Due to its siting, bulk and design I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that the scale and form of construction respects or complements the host dwelling and is compatible with development in the surrounding area. There is also conflict with 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 flank wall of the single-storey rear extension would abut the boundary the appeal property shares with No. 52. This element would therefore be close to a set of glazed doors in the ground floor rear elevation of No. 52 and the patio at the rear of this house. The flank wall would be a lot taller than the fence it would replace and would protrude a significant distance beyond the main rear elevation of No. 52. The patio area would be severely enclosed by this part of the proposal and outlook from the ground floor room closest to the proposal would be compromised.

Due to its siting, size and height I therefore conclude that the proposed rear extension would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 52. As such the proposal conflicts with BLP Policy 37 and LP Policy D3 which seek to protect existing residential occupiers from inappropriate development.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.