Alterations to roof to include partial hip to gable end, rear inset balcony and front porch extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 November 2017 by P W Clark MA MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/17/3187876 543 Upper Elmers End Road, Beckenham BR3 3DF  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Hilary Gee against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/03102/FULL6, dated 4 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 August 2017.  The development proposed is alterations to roof to include partial hip to gable end, rear inset balcony and front porch extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The proposal was described on the application form as main roof alterations, front porch addition and rear inset balcony but was changed on the appeal form to the description used in the headings above. Reasons 3. The sole main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on character and appearance, both of the existing building and of the street scene. Number 543 is one of a group of four bungalows in an isolated section of Upper Elmers End Road facing a railway embankment. 4. Number 537 is differently orientated and set well back from the road but originally the other three, including the appeal property, were identical and all four shared a common form comprising a tall hipped roof at their core, with a forward projecting wing under a lower but also hipped roof. In recent times, number 539 has been transformed with a front infill extension and a new roof form having gabled sides. Although the unity of the street is compromised, its character retains the appearance of a group of bungalows, some with accommodation in the roofspace. The building itself at number 539 maintains its own internal consistency of design. 5. By contrast, the proposal at number 543 would reconfigure the main body of the building under what is described as a mansard roof with gable ends to front and rear. The two gable ends would be of differing designs but that is of no significance because the building could not be seen in the round. Precedent is claimed for the form of the new roof by reference to examples nearby but the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3187876 2 historic examples illustrated display a much steeper main pitch. The new gable-fronted mansard roof profile would clearly express the building as a two storey dwelling but would retain unaltered the projecting single storey wing under its hipped roof. 6. The introduction of a demonstrably two storey design into a group of buildings which despite losing their uniformly hipped roofs have hitherto retained the appearance of bungalows would further compromise the street’s consistency of character. Even if that were acceptable on the grounds that the consistency has already been lost, the proposal would result in a design at odds with itself because it would retain unaltered the lower projecting wing with its hipped roof attached to the main body of the house with its quite alien form and unrelated roof pitches. Incongruity would indeed be the result, as the Council alleges. 7. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance both of the building itself and of the street in general. It would not comply with London Plan policies 7.4 and 7.6 which, amongst other matters, require regard to be had to the pattern and grain of existing spaces and streets and which require buildings to comprise details and materials that complement, not necessarily replicate, local architectural character and integrate well with surrounding streets. Nor would it comply with Bromley Unitary Development Plan policies BE1 and H8 which require buildings to complement the scale, form, layout and materials of the host dwelling and of adjacent buildings and areas. P. W. Clark Inspector