Appeal 6005278

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Keston Park Conservation Area.

The appeal site is located on the southern side of [site address] and is within the Keston Park Conservation Area. The main dwelling has two storeys with a mansard storey in the roof. It is detached and has a detached garage located in its front forecourt to the west side. No.10 [site address] is to the west side and no.14 [site address] to the east side. These houses are also detached and have two main storeys and stand close to the appeal site on a similar building line.

The proposed development is to erect a front extension and a first floor extension to the existing detached garage. The first floor would be non-habitable and used for domestic storage accessed via a hatch with drop down ladder. There would be a large window at first floor level. The roof would be mansard-type roof with steep sides and a flat roof, and the window would be a semi-dormer style.

The Keston Park Conservation Area “CA” has its own Supplementary Planning Guidance. One of the two main components, according to the SPG, is “a very low density development”. It is also, on the whole, a spacious group of houses which tend to have their front facades visible in the streetscene. It also has a strong landscape setting with mature vegetation. The SPG notes that particular care is needed over the design of two storey garages on the estate.

In considering this appeal I am mindful of the statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The location of the existing garage wholly to the front of the house is not a common location for garages on the Keston estate. It is prominent notwithstanding that there is some vegetation at the front of the plot adjacent to the road (which may not be permanent).

The proposed mansard form of the roof would not be sympathetic to the existing garage, and the proposed front extension on which it would partly sit would also add an increased bulk to the building. It would appear a top heavy building squeezed into the space between a side extension on the west side of the house and the road.

The proposed window would result in a domestic look to the building as opposed to a simple subservient ancillary non-habitable outbuilding. Its prominence would be increased by its augmented bulk and scale. The resulting garage would appear more dominant from the street than the existing garage. I am also concerned that it would block light from the ground floor side extension front windows to the detriment of the living conditions of occupants of the house.

For those reasons, I consider that the significance of the CA would be harmed. The character and appearance of the CA would not be preserved or enhanced. In coming to that view, I have borne in mind that the main house has a mansard roof but that does not render the proposal, with its mansard style roof, sufficiently sympathetic in this location.

The proposal would breach policy D4 of the London Plan 2021, policies 6, 37 & 41 of the Bromley Local Plan (adopted 2019) and the [name] (2023).

Having considered all representations made, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal. [name].C.