Two storey side and part one/two storey rear extension to incorporate enlargement of roof space with side dormers, Juliet balcony to rear, rooflights and elevational alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2025 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 July 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000091 7 Valley Road, Shortlands, Bromley, Kent BR2 0HB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Ben Bates against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/03572/FULL6. • The development proposed is two storey side and part one/two storey rear extension to incorporate enlargement of roof space with side dormers, Juliet balcony to rear, rooflights and elevational alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s decision notice as it more succinctly reflects the proposal before me, than the one provided on the planning application form. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area, including the Shortlands Village Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 4. Shortlands Village is an historically and architecturally interesting suburb that developed following the arrival of the railway and station. Accordingly, its overriding character is that of a modest railway village with artisan housing for those on low incomes. The CA therefore gains significance from its historic and architectural interest. 5. The appeal site and its semi-detached neighbour, number 5, were built in the 1880’s, following the arrival of the railway. The semi-detached pair are two and a half storey houses in red brick with tiled roofs. Their front gables are half timbered with pebble dash infill. However, the semi-detached pair are not symmetrical. The original open porch of number 7 has now been closed in and number 5 has a large side extension and modern windows. The Shortlands Village Historic Area Assessment (HAA)1 notes that despite a high degree of alteration, these buildings are attractive. They therefore contribute positively to the CA. 1 Dated February 2020 Appeal Decision 6000091 2 6. The proposed side extension would be set down from the main ridge of the host dwelling and back from the front elevation, in much the same way as the side extension to number 5. However, the treatment of the front elevation would vary. The construction of a gable to the front elevation, would add some bulk to the roof but not to an unacceptable extent. It would not be as wide or as high as the existing main gable and therefore would not detract from the original detail on the front elevation. 7. The proposed works would mean that the pair of semi-detached dwellings would not be symmetrical. However, they were not symmetrical at the time the HAA was carried out but were still found to be an attractive pair. Their attractiveness is not therefore dependant on them being symmetrical. In this respect, I find that the proposed front gable extension would result in no harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the contribution it makes, together with number 5, to the overall character and appearance of the CA. 8. At the rear, the proposal includes a large two storey extension with accommodation within the roof. The two storey extension would not be dissimilar in scale to the extensions which have taken place at the rear of number 5. However, the proposal also includes the addition of two large dormers along much of the length of the rear projecting roof. I have not been directed to examples of similar dormer windows in the local area nor been provided with substantive evidence that they are a particular feature of the area. 9. These would add significantly to the bulk of the roof. Whilst they would be set down from the ridge of the main roof, they would nonetheless be visible through the gap between the host dwelling and the neighbouring number 9. These dormers would be a disproportionate addition to the roof. The resulting scale of the roof would appear excessive and result in an over dominant addition. This would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and affect the contribution that the property makes to the overall character and appearance of the CA. 10. The proposal would conflict with Policies 6, 37 and 41 of the Bromley Local Plan, adopted January 2019 (LP) which requires a high standard of design which positively contributes to the existing street scene, alterations of a scale and form which respect the host dwelling and dormers windows of a size and design which are appropriate to the roofscape. Other considerations 11. The appellants are keen to invest significantly into the building as part of a comprehensive series of upgrades to its energy efficiency. Such steps would contribute towards the Government’s objective of achieving net zero and ensuring that existing homes are fit for the longer term. However, there is nothing to suggest that the appeal scheme is the only way this could be achieved. 12. The appeal proposal relates to extensions to a single family dwelling. Any future proposals to convert the building into flats and the contribution that this would make towards the Council’s housing land supply is not relevant to the proposal before me as there is no guarantee that such a proposal would be found acceptable nor take place. Appeal Decision 6000091 3 13. Compliance with Policy 8 of the LP in respect of side space separation and the lack of objection from interested parties are matters which weigh neither for or against the proposal and are therefore neutral in my assessment. Conclusion 14. The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR