For a loft conversion including rear dormer and part hip- to-gable extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 July 2021 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 August 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/21/3272361 14 Northbourne, Hayes, Bromley BR2 7ND • 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 D Cowling-Cass against the decision of the London Borough of Bromley Council. • The application Ref. DC/20/04109/FULL6, dated 8 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 3 February 2021. • The development proposed is for a loft conversion including rear dormer and part hip- to-gable extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is situated within a residential area predominately comprising two storey semi-detached houses wherein the principle of development is deemed acceptable. Many dwellings in the locality have been altered and extended over time in a number of ways. 4. No14, like some other houses within the road has a cat-slide roof to the flank elevation of the original main range, and a two storey side extension behind this which projects to the rear. The proposed side extension would build over the majority of the main roof, dramatically affecting its character, and in combination with the existing extensions and rear dormer would give it a jumbled appearance comprising of a multitude of built elements. 5. Notwithstanding the marginal step-down from the main ridge of no14, the scheme would also unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings of which it forms part, in an area where such additions are not common place, particularly to a house of this specific design. I note the other examples cited by the appellant, and whilst it is not for me to comment on the appropriateness of these or otherwise, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/21/3272361 2 6. Therefore I consider that by reason of its size and bulk, the proposed side extension would result in an unsympathetic and incongruous addition to the appeal dwelling and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. This harm is not outweighed by the benefits of creating additional living accommodation with the form of development largely following its function. 7. I find the scheme is in conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) which together require the design and layout of proposals for the alteration or enlargement of residential properties to, amongst other things, be of a scale and form that would respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area whilst being imaginative and attractive to look at. 8. The scheme also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework’s need to achieve well-designed places, ensuring that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and are sympathetic to local character. Conclusion 9. Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR