Side two storey extension, single rear extension and loft conversion with rear dormer and roof lights to front slope

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2025 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000092 245 Clock House Road, Beckenham, Bromley BR3 4LD • 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 and Ms Kiernan and White against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/03708/FULL6. • The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘side two storey extension, single rear extension and loft conversion with rear dormer and roof lights to front slope’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for side two storey extension, single rear extension and loft conversion with rear dormer and roof lights to front slope at 245 Clock House Road, Beckenham, Bromley BR3 4LD in accordance with the terms of application Ref DC/24/03708/FULL6, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan; Drawing No. 03 Proposed plans; Drawing No. 04 Proposed roof plans; Drawing No. 05 Proposed elevations and Drawing No. 06 Block plan. Preliminary Matter and Main Issue 2. The appeal proposals include a single storey rear extension and loft conversion with rear dormer window which do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal. The Council’s officer report does not identify any conflict with development plan policy in these respects. Following my site visit, I see no reason to disagree. Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed two storey side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located in a residential area with a mix of predominantly semi- detached and terraced properties. The terraces vary in length and are generally made up of between four and six properties. Gable features to the front elevation are a notable feature of the properties in the area. In the main, properties have hipped roofs. However, the terraces are located close to each other so when Appeal Decision 6000092 2 viewed along the street, individual roofs are not particularly discernible from one another. A number of properties have also had alterations and additions including to the roof. For these reasons, the roof form of the properties is not a defining feature of the street scene. 4. The appeal site is the end property in a terrace of four, with an existing flat roof garage to the side. To the south west of the appeal site, there are three bungalows set back from an access which runs along the side boundary of the appeal site. Together with the appeal site’s location on the outside of a bend in the road, this results in an uncharacteristically spacious feel to this part of Clock House Road. 5. The two storey extension to the side of the property would not retain a minimum one metre gap from the side boundary and would encroach into the space between the terrace of properties and the adjacent bungalows. However, it would be no closer to the boundary than the existing flat roof garage it would replace and given the relative positioning of the adjacent bungalows, the spacious character of this part of the road would not be unduly harmed. Consequently, the proposal would not appear as a cramped form of development. 6. The extension would not be set down from the existing ridge or back from the front elevation of the main house. Accordingly, it would not appear subservient. However, the extension would replicate the gable projection on the front of the four properties in the terrace. This would respect the rhythm and pattern of the terrace as a whole, and those elsewhere in the road. It would not appear out of place in a street containing terraces of up to six dwellings. 7. The importance of ensuring that roof forms and rooflines reflect the rhythm, harmony and scale of the host building and the street are set out in DG5 of the Council’s guidance1. However, for the reasons already set out including the spaciousness of this part of the road and the variety of roof forms in the locality, the proposed half hip roof would not appear unduly bulky or incongruous in the street scene. 8. For these reasons, no conflict would arise with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan, adopted January 2019, insofar as they require residential extensions that respect the scale and form of the host dwelling and are compatible with surrounding development. There would also be no conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 which requires proposals to respond to local distinctiveness. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 10. The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted July 2023