Alterations to the roof with construction of a hip to gable loft conversion including a 400mm roof ridge raise and front slope roof lights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 March 2025 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 March 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000065 27 Maple Road, Penge, Bromley, London SE20 8LA • 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 Holly Restieaux against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/03504/FULL6. • The development proposed is alterations to the roof with construction of a hip to gable loft conversion including a 400mm roof ridge raise and front slope roof lights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework. Its content relative to the main issue of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary to give the parties opportunity to comment on the revisions. Main Issue 3. The effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area. Reasons 4. The appeal building is a mid-19th century dwelling that faces out over an area of similarly aged development, which includes dwellings that are paired and those that are arranged in terraces. The dwellings in the area are not entirely consistent; some are taller, and some have gabled roof forms; however, hips are a feature of the area, and where low pitched like at the appeal property they have an elegant appearance and contribute to the character and appearance of the area. 5. To the rear the appeal site has quite a different setting, with an area of mid-20th century residential development with dwellings arranged as single plain blocks. 6. The rear of the appeal dwelling is visible from Jasmine Grove to the side, and Hartfield Grove to the rear. Although both are incidental views, the view of the back of the dwelling with its traditional form, that is seen amongst other similarly aged dwellings, is one that contributes to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The dwelling is semi-detached. A strong sense of symmetry is provided by the parts of the semi-detached pair that are centred on the prominent central chimney and front facing parapet. To either side of this the dwellings have a single road Appeal Decision 6000065 2 fronting bay, with a matching bay window arrangement and shallow hipped roof. Beyond this to the southwest the appeal dwelling extends further. Although this appears to be part of the original dwelling, it has a secondary form, derived from its set back wall and roof. This gives it the appearance of an extension to the primary block that is centred on the main chimney breast. 8. The proposal would see the roof to this part of the dwelling extended up and out so that it forms a full gable to the side. This would make it more dominant, which would harm the existing arrangement whereby this wing has a subsidiary relationship to the part that it sits alongside. Raising the ridge height would also mean that the ridge would no longer be neatly centred on the chimney. The effect would be a modest erosion of the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, and the neat and carefully considered design of the pair of dwellings with their primary and secondary elements. 9. At the rear the change would be much more noticeable. The rear roof would be entirely obscured by a prominent and assertive rearward extension. This would dominate the rear aspect of the dwelling and obscure the elegant form of its original low-slung roof. Although public views of the rear of the building are largely limited to those identified above, where glimpsed it would draw the eye owing to its scale, and its incompatibility with the traditional design language of the existing dwelling. It would appear entirely out of place when viewed amongst the traditional forms of the adjacent 19th century dwellings. 10. In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the wider area. It would not accord with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019, which seek to ensure that development proposals are designed to a high standard, respect or complement the host dwelling, are attractive, and contribute positively to the streetscene. Conclusion 11. For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed. A Tucker INSPECTOR