Appeal 6007904

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, with specific regard to the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).

The appeal site is within [address] which is within the ASRC. [address] has a mix of detached and semi-detached post-war style two-storey properties. These properties share detailed fascia elements which contribute to a sense of uniformity. There is generous spacing between these properties especially at first floor and roof level. The generous gaps between dwellings reflect the original garden suburb layout and contribute to a pronounced sense of spaciousness which forms part of the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC.

The properties along [address] have a consistent front building line and are set back from the road with low boundary treatments. The properties on [address] appear to have roofs which have mostly been unaltered by roof extensions or conversions. Consequently, the properties along [address] exhibit many of the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC.

The host dwelling is a detached two-storey property which is set back from the road with a low boundary treatment. The property currently has a consistent building and roof line level with the other properties on [address]. The roof design of the property is symmetrical and compact.

The neighbouring property [address] has a side extension which means the gap between 11 and [site address] has been diminished but remains spacious at first floor level. A spacious gap remains between 13 and [address]. These gaps allow views of the mature vegetation from the street scene which adds to the open character. The separation between these dwellings contributes to a spacious rhythm and pattern of built form which positively adds to the ASRC. Consequently, the property makes a positive contribution to the character of the area and reflects the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC.

The proposed development would involve demolishing the existing garage and utility to make way for the construction of a two-storey side and single storey rear extension.

It has been established that the properties in the ASRC have higher standards of separation which is reflected by the properties on [address]. The proposed side extension has been set back from the boundary at first floor level. However, due to its height and position, the proposed side extension would diminish the spacious gap between 11 and [site address] at first floor level. This would disrupt the established spacious rhythm and pattern of the development and would therefore be harmful to the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC. This harm would further be compounded by the loss of the views of the mature vegetation from the street scene which would have a detrimental effect on the open character of the surrounding area.

The two‐storey height and combined width of the proposal would create a broad, visually assertive form that materially alters the scale and proportions of the original host dwelling. The proposed side extension roof would not be subservient and would disrupt the building’s previously symmetrical and compact roof design, resulting in an unbalanced appearance that harms the character of the host property. In addition, the extension would introduce an irregular roof shape and line that fails to reflect the prevailing character of [address] and does not respect, enhance, or reinforce the special and distinctive qualities of the ASRC.

The rear single storey element of the proposed development would have reduced massing and is in a less prominent location. The height and width of the proposed rear element would not affect the spacious gap between the host dwelling and its neighbours. Thus, the proposed rear element would not have a harmful impact of the character of the host dwelling or the ASRC. Nevertheless, this lack of harm does not outweigh the harm I have already identified.

For these reasons, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, surrounding area, and the ASRC. It would conflict with the provisions set out in Policies 6, 8, 37 and 44 of the Local Plan, London Borough of Bromley, Planning Division, 2019; Policy D3 of the London Plan, 2021. Amongst other things, these policies 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 proposed development would also be contrary to the design guidance contained in the Bromley's Urban Design Supplementary Planning Guidance, 2023.

I have found there would be harm to the character and appearance on the host dwelling, the surrounding area and ASRC. It therefore follows that the proposed development is not well designed and should be dismissed in line with the provisions set out in paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

My attention has been drawn to extensions at 1, 2, 11, 15, 25 and [address]. Several of these were determined under a previous development plan and were likely subjected to different policies. From my site visit, I observed that although these dwellings have been extended, a generous separation between properties has been retained. As such, these examples are not directly comparable to the appeal site. My attention was also drawn to [address]; however, this property is in a different context and is likewise not directly comparable. In any event, I do not have the full details of each case before me and therefore cannot be certain of the circumstances or planning balance applied in those decisions. I have determined this appeal on its own merits and in accordance with the current development plan. These examples do not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would provide an efficient use of land and would create additional and flexible accommodation for a growing family. However, in my judgement, any benefits to be drawn in these senses would be insufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

Reference has been made to the fact that appropriate materials would be used, that there would be acceptable living conditions for future occupiers and that the amenities of neighbours would not be harmed. However, these are not benefits of the scheme that weigh in its favour as this is what is expected of all development in order to be acceptable.

The appellants indicate that the principle of development is acceptable. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF finds that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the development plan is not consistent with the NPPF or is out of date. I have found that the proposed development conflicts with the development plan and have found no material consideration to alter my conclusions on the main issues.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.