Loft conversion with rear dormer including Juliet balcony and front rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 October 2025 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRPTI Decision by Martin Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31st March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000429 5 Chart Close, Bromley BR2 0EB • 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 Emily Rosen-Rawlings against the decision of the London Borough of Bromley Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/01547/FULL6. • The development proposed is a loft conversion with rear dormer including Juliet balcony and front rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with rear dormer including Juliet balcony and front rooflights at 5 Chart Close, Bromley, BR2 0EB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/25/01547/FULL6, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with that shown on drawing nos BLOCKPLAN/01, TP/BR/01, and TP/BR06. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. I observed that a dormer to the rear roof slope and roof lights to the front elevation had been implemented at the appeal dwelling. However, I note that the Juliet Balcony shown on the proposed plans had not been implemented. I am mindful that the appeal must be determined based on the proposal originally before the Council and made available for public consultation. Accordingly, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the plans, including nos TP/BR/01 and TP/BR/06. 4. I have taken the description of development from the decision notice issued by the Council dated 19.06.2025 which differs from the iteration included on the planning application form. However, I note that the appellant had agreed to the change, and I am satisfied that it provides a full and accurate description of the development. 5. Since the publication of the Council’s decision, the Shortlands Village Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan was formally adopted on 25 June 2025. In the interests of ensuring procedural fairness, both parties were contacted for further comment, and any responses are incorporated within my reasoning. Appeal Decision 6000429 2 Main Issue 6. The council do not assert any harm with regards to the roof light elements of the proposed development. I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed rear dormer on the character and appearance of the Shortlands Village Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The Shortlands Village Conservation Area’s (the CA) significance is derived from its expansion following the arrival of the railway which saw its transformation from rural farmland to a planned vision. The railway station acted as a catalyst for growth, resulting in the characterisation of the area by modest housing in the form of terraces that had formed accommodation for both workers of larger houses within the area requiring domestic staff as well as housing the early commuters working in Central London. 8. The natural developmental evolution of the CA has resulted in multiple backfill developments, including Chart Close which is situated to the rear of Shortlands Gardens. Shortlands Gardens has modest artisan building stock in the form of terraced dwellings with some distinctive architectural features including bay windows, which contribute to the significance and visual quality of the area. Conversely, Chart Close is characterised by a more contemporary cul-de-sac development pattern, featuring an array of detached and semi-detached dwellings with a later terrace to one side of the close. 9. The dwellings within Chart Close are generally uniform in terms of their appearance when viewed from their front elevations, albeit with evidence of alteration to some garages which have been converted into habitable accommodation. However, this uniformity is less evident to the rear elevations of dwellings, which albeit largely obscured from public view, possess a range of dormer roof extensions incorporated within the pitched roofs of the dwellings. Whilst there are opportunities where these can be observed from the public realm, they are by no way prominent either within Chart Close or when seen from glimpsed views between properties sited along Farnaby Road. 10. The development would result in the addition of a box dormer to the rear roof slope of the appeal dwelling. I accept that the dormer would be of a substantial size, although I recognise that it would be comfortably accommodated within the rear roof slope and be set away from the eaves and edge. Whilst the mass would represent a significant addition, I am not persuaded that it would overwhelm the scale of the host dwelling. 11. I am broadly satisfied that the overall design of the development would be appropriate to the appearance and architectural merits of the host dwelling. Chart Close, including the appeal dwelling, represents a later infill development and thus the implementation of the more contemporary design of box dormer would not be uncharacteristic. The box dormer would integrate with the wider context set by the proliferation of other existing dormers within Chart Close, which are of similar design, and I do not accept that a further roof addition of this type would result in a cumulative harmful impact in this context. Considering appropriateness of the design of the development and the similar development within the immediate vicinity, the development would not appear as a harmful addition to either the host Appeal Decision 6000429 3 dwelling or within the immediate street scene and wider context in which it is located. 12. The development’s siting to the rear roof slope would mean it is largely obscured from the public realm and any alleged harm arising from it would be largely limited to the private rear garden’s nearby occupants. I further find that given the nature of the development pattern, Chart Close and the dwellings contained within it are not identified as buildings of particular merit and would therefore make a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. I conclude that the proposed development would not be a prominent addition to the public realm and would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the host dwelling or street scene within this context and would therefore not harm the significance of the heritage asset. 13. For these reasons, I find that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Shortlands Village Conservation Area and would therefore accord with Section 72(1) of the Planning Act 1990. I find there to be no harm to the character or appearance of the host dwelling or wider area and thus the development accords with the Bromley Local Plan with particular regard to policies 6 (Residential Extensions), 37 (General Design of Development) and 41 (Conservation Areas), and with regard to Policy HC1 of the London Plan. These policies, amongst other things, aim to ensure that dormer roof extensions are of a size and design appropriate to the roofscape and sited away from prominent roof pitches and that development preserves and enhances the characteristics of Conservation Areas by respecting the scale, form and materials of existing buildings within them and respecting features that contribute to the character, appearance or historic value of the area. Conditions 14. Given that the development has commenced, it is unnecessary to impose a commencement condition which would usually be required to meet statutory requirements. However, in the interests of accuracy and certainty, I have included a condition to identify the approved plans. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Martin Seaton INSPECTOR