Appeal 6006038

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located within an attractive and verdant residential area characterised predominantly by large detached and semi‐detached houses set within generous plots. Dwellings are generally set back from the highway behind low brick walls, with landscaped front gardens and driveways. While retaining a strong sense of individuality, the buildings display a coherent architectural language, including rendered elevations, hipped roofs and frequent gabled two‐storey bay windows. Importantly, there are consistent and generous gaps between dwellings, reflecting the original garden suburb layout and contributing to a pronounced sense of spaciousness which form part of the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC wherein the site lies.

The host dwelling displays an asymmetrical composition with clear and consistent gaps to neighbouring properties, reflecting the established pattern of development along the street. While the proposed side extensions would be set marginally below the main roof ridge and stepped back to a degree from the principal elevation, their full two‐storey height and combined width would introduce a broad and visually assertive form. This would materially alter the scale and proportions of the original dwelling, resulting in a frontage that would appear more symmetrical and significantly wider than is characteristic of detached houses within the street scene.

As a consequence, the proposal would markedly reduce the perceived openness between the appeal property and its neighbours, unacceptably eroding the sense of visual separation that forms a defining characteristic of the ASRC. The appeal proposals would appear incongruous within its surroundings, introducing an overly dominant and plot‐filling form of development that would undermine the area’s established spatial qualities.

For these reasons, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the ASRC. As such, it would conflict with Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the Local Plan, London Borough of Bromley, Planning Division, 2019; Policy D3 of the London Plan, 2021 and guidance contained in the Bromley's Urban Design Supplementary Planning Guidance, 2023. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development is of a high standard of design, that compliments the host dwelling, and respects, enhances and strengthens the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC.

The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.