Appeal 6003587

The appeal is dismissed.

Given the nature of the proposal and the information provided with the appeal I am satisfied that viewing the property from the street has enabled me to adequately assess the proposal before me.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house that includes a 2-storey extension to the side and a full-width single-storey addition to the rear. It forms part of a group of 4 semi-detached hipped roof houses that appear to have been largely identical when originally constructed. [address], the appeal property’s attached pair, includes a 2-storey side extension with a flat roof. No. 125, to the other side of the appeal property, has a side extension that largely replicates the arrangement at the appeal property. No. 127 includes a hip-to-gable roof addition. Despite these alterations the group retains a relatively high degree of uniformity. In particular, the symmetry between the appeal property and its neighbour No.125 is a matter to which I attach significant weight.

The wider area contains a mix of semi-detached and terraced houses of similar age. Whilst the detailed design of the houses differs, they share a similar palette of materials and are of similar scale, height, and bulk. This, combined with the wide grass verges and verdant frontages creates a high quality and relatively unified residential environment. To the rear many of the houses have been extended and flat roofed dormers within original rear roof slopes are a common feature.

The appeal property has a stepped hipped roof which mirrors the arrangement at No. 125. The proposal would expand the roof to create a single ridge level with a clipped gable above a raised flank elevation. This significant increase in roof level bulk would create an overly dominant and incongruous roof form that would unbalance the symmetry between the appeal property and its neighbours and harm the appearance of the group of which it forms part.

The proposal would also include a dormer to the rear that would span across almost the full width of the expanded roof and feature a pair of hipped roofs to either side of an area of flat roof. [name] note that dormers are a common feature in the area, they are predominantly flat-roofed and far smaller than that proposed. Due to its width and design the proposed rear roof addition would be an incongruous addition in the context of roofs that contain smaller flat-roofed dormers.

Due to its height, bulk, siting, and design I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. It therefore fails to accord with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) 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) and the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) which seeks the reinforcement of local character and identity.

The appellant has referred to planning permissions for householder development at 15 and [address] in [site address] , details of which are not before me. As each planning application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits having regard to its particular local context I attribute limited weight to these permissions for similar development.

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