Loft conversion incorporating raising the ridge height, rear dormer and two rooflights to front roofslope

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 March 2026 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004473 32B St Keverne Road, Mottingham, London SE9 4AA • 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 Ms Lillian Lajwii against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/04621/HPA. • The development proposed is a loft conversion incorporating raising the ridge height, rear dormer and two rooflights to front roofslope. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. An update to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in draft for consultation purposes in December 2025. The content of this draft consultation document does not materially alter the national policy context for the assessment of this appeal. Main Issues 3. It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of 63 and 65 Kimmeridge Road. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is a modest sized 2-storey dwelling which is at the end of a short terrace of 3-dwellings. A 2-storey dwelling (32B St Keverne Road) of a similar design as the property is at the other end of the terrace with the middle dwelling being a bungalow. Adjacent to the property there are similar terraces comprising a mix of bungalows sandwiched between 2-storey dwellings. 5. The majority of the other residential properties within the surrounding area are 2-storey terraced dwellings. Only a very limited number of roof extensions were observed during the site visit, including at 8A St Keverne Road. There are variations in the height of non-residential buildings, including St Edward’ Church, Appeal Decision 6004473 2 the adjoining Mottingham Community Centre and within the near-by local centre Kimmeridge Road/Beaconsfield Road. 6. The proposed development includes a roof extension which would increase the ridge height of the property and also involve the erection of a large dormer within the rear roofslope. The increase in the property’s ridge height is needed to create the required headroom within the enlarged roofspace for the proposed bedroom. The appellant has identified that the proposed bedroom within the roofspace would represent an efficient use of the property’s airspace which is encouraged by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 7. The guidance contained in the council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) refers to extensions and alterations to dwellings responding to their character and appearing subservient in scale to avoid uncharacteristically large additions. The SPD notes that such additions could significantly change the appearance of a property and have a detrimental impact on character. Further, the SPD includes guidance that roof forms of extensions should be designed to minimise the visual impact on the street and positively respond to the character of the area. 8. The proposed increase in the property’s ridge height would not be particularly noticeable. There would be an unbalancing of the terrace within which the property is located because of No. 32 currently being of the same height and design. This difference would not be particularly noticeable from the surrounding roads and it would not alone be a reason for this appeal to fail. However, in combination with the size of the proposed rear dormer, the appeal scheme as a whole would be visually an overly dominant and disproportionate addition to this modest sized property. The cumulative scale and massing of the proposed development would not represent a subservient addition to the host property and, as such, it would conflict with the SPD’s guidance. 9. The unacceptable harm caused by the appeal scheme to the character and appearance of the host property and the terrace within which it is sited would be seen from both Kimmeridge Road and St Keverne Road. The proposed roof extension would be a prominent feature within the streetscene along Kimmeridge Road and this contrasts with the more limited views of the rear dormer at No. 8A, including from Framlingham Crescent. The unacceptable harm identified demonstrably outweighs the benefits associated with the efficient use of airspace. 10. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (BLP) and the guidance contained in the SPD. Amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that new development, including residential extensions, is of a high-quality design that positively contribute to the existing streetscene. Policy D3 of the London Plan (LP) is not considered to be of direct relevance to the assessment of a domestic roof extension because it concerns optimising site capacity through a design-led approach. Living Conditions 11. At first floor level within the property’s rear elevation is an obscurely glazed bathroom window which can be opened. With the window open, there is an outlook which includes part of the rear garden of 63 Kimmeridge Road. Appeal Decision 6004473 3 12. A bedroom window is proposed within the rear roofslope of the extension from which there would be an outlook primarily towards the Community Centre and the buildings within the local centre fronting Kimmeridge Road. The outlook towards the rear garden of No. 63 would be oblique. There would be, if available, a very limited outlook towards the rear garden of 65 Kimmeridge Road because of the siting of the proposed window. 13. Within a suburban residential area some degree of overlooking of rear gardens can be expected. In this case, because of the height of the proposed bedroom window, the relationship between the siting of the property and the neighbouring properties and the oblique outlook from the window towards the dwellings fronting Kimmeridge Road, this is not a case where there would be an unacceptable reduction in the level of privacy caused to the occupiers of Nos. 63 and 65 because of overlooking. 14. On this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of 63 and 65 Kimmeridge Road and, as such, it would not conflict with BLP Policy D3 concerning new development, including extensions, respecting the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings by reason of, amongst other matters, not being harmed by loss of privacy. For the reason already given, LP Policy D3 is also not considered relevant to the assessment of this main issue. Conclusion 15. Although the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 63 and 65 Kimmeridge Road, this matter is judged to be demonstrably and significantly outweighed by the unacceptable harm caused to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR