Appeal 6006820

The appeal is dismissed.

The banner heading above uses the description that was given on the Council’s decision notice and which was repeated by the appellant on the appeal form. This accurately describes the proposal and gives a clarified version of the description that was originally given on the application form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal relates to a detached dwelling with first-floor accommodation contained within its roof space. The property has a distinctively steep, dual-pitched roof with low eaves to ground-floor level and with a forward facing, full height gabled entrance feature incorporating a first-floor window in its apex, as is also the case to both end gables. There is a small, flat roof dormer to the rear elevation. The dwelling occupies a large rectangular corner plot adjacent to the junction where [address] is bisected by [address] and sits within the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC), described by the Council as an identifiable and coherent area comprising almost exclusively of large detached two-storey family houses on generous plots. Notwithstanding, I observed that properties within the area are mostly individually styled with no particular sense of uniformity to their architectural composition.

The orientation and layout of No 111 is atypical for the area. Plots generally within the ASRC are rectangular, with more narrow frontages, deep and spacious rear gardens, and with limited space between neighbouring houses. In contrast, due to the configuration of the plot and the orientation of the dwelling, the appeal property’s principal private garden space is to the side, where there is a large gap between the dwelling’s north-west facing side elevation and [address]. The south-east facing side gable aligns with the forward building line of neighbouring properties along [address], where the appeal property follows the more conventional local development pattern by its setting close to the boundary with [address]. As a consequence, whilst spacious in its setting when seen from [address], No 111 has extremely limited space to the rear and no rear garden to speak of.

The proposal involves a number of clearly self-identifiable elements which include a full height side extension to the north-west side of the dwelling in lieu of an existing, subservient single-storey element; two dormer windows to the front elevation facing [address] to either side of the gabled feature; enlargement of the dormer window to the rear elevation facing [address]; and a new front entrance porch extension. The implementation of these works would involve the use of silicone render in place of existing white painted, timber cladding to the existing upper levels of the gables and to the rear dormer, with its use also included upon the proposed new dormers.

I accept that front dormers are not common features within the ASRC, and that those that do exist locally are mostly modest in size. Those proposed at No 111 would be larger than others nearby but would not be excessively large nor disproportionate within the expanse of the existing roof slope. Furthermore, they would be gable fronted with roof pitches mirroring the existing front gable, they would be set in from the roof’s sides, up from the eaves and down from the ridge, and would be squarely aligned with the fenestration pattern below. These are all positive attributes. The use of white render is common in the area and would simply reflect the dwelling’s materials choice at its upper level. Although the dormers would be fairly prominent features within the street scene they would not, in my judgement, dominate the roofscape but would instead appear as well-considered and integrated parts of the dwelling’s remodelled form, which would remain to be seen as a unique piece of architecture and comfortable within its setting.

The front porch would project just over 1m in front of the gable, across its full width, as a single-storey element with a tiled hipped roof over. It would remain set back from the front boundary by around 3m and, as a modest subservient addition, I am not persuaded that it would add any meaningful bulk or prominence to the dwelling’s already unique position and presence within the street scene, including when also viewed within the context of its overall remodelled form.

The existing dormer window to the rear is very modest, measuring just over 3.2m wide and just 1.7m high. The proposal would extend its width noticeably to almost 9m. Nevertheless, its height would remain unchanged and it would continue to be set well away from the roof’s sides, up from the eaves and down from the ridge. Whilst it would be visible in oblique views from [address] through the gap with No 6, it would remain as a reasonably modest addition within the vast expanse of the rear roof slope, which would retain its original profile. I do not share the Council’s view that the use of render to its façade and cheeks would intensify its presence to any degree that would be visually harmful. The glazing proposed would all be obscure. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, this could have been controlled by condition to ensure that the living conditions at No 6 would be safeguarded.

The new side extension would simply project the form of the existing dwelling sideways by a distance of 3m. The enlarged building would retain its already horizontal proportions and would remain comfortable in its plot, with ample side garden space and separation with [address]. I share the Council’s view that the scale and general form of this component of the works would appear as a fully integrated and appropriate part of the dwelling overall. However, its flank elevation would be fully glazed. This would face towards, and provide outlook over, the property’s private side garden. Notwithstanding any form of reasonable boundary enclosure, a significant proportion of this side gable would be clearly visible within the street scene when looking south on the approach along [address].

I share the Council’s concern that this detailing would introduce an overtly contemporary feature. The glazed gable would clash with the more traditional styling of the existing dwelling and would significantly erode the important role this plays in maintaining a balance between the unique qualities of No 111 and the wider established character of the ASRC. The contrast between traditional and contemporary styling would be stark and would be particularly so during hours of darkness when light could readily spill from inside the building in a dominant and intrusive manner without any reasonable means of control, and which would be readily perceived from beyond the confines of the appeal site.

I am mindful that the appellant has acknowledged the potential for this part of the proposal to impact upon the character of the area, and as part of the appeal submissions has offered to amend the gabled elevation to reflect the architectural language of the original dwelling. However, this would substantially change the nature of the proposal that is before me. As such, it would not be appropriate to secure any such amendments by way of condition. The appeal has therefore been considered on the basis of the original application plans.

Notwithstanding my findings upon other elements of the proposal, I find overall that the part one/two storey side extension would appear incongruous and out of keeping with the more traditional character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider ASRC. In this regard there would be conflict with the aims and objectives of the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted July 2023, and the requirements of Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the Bromley Local Plan, January 2019, and Policy D4 of The London Plan 2021. Between them these seek to secure a quality of design, including for residential extensions, which respects the host dwelling and is compatible with the distinctive qualities of its surroundings.

I note comments made by some local interested parties relating to the removal of vegetation and the installation of new fencing around the perimeter of the site. However, these matters are unrelated to the original planning application and the subsequent appeal that is before me.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.