Loft conversion as built with 2 no

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 April 2026 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:30 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004665 19 Arthur Road, Biggin Hill, Bromley, TN16 3DD • 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 Sive Cavanagh against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/05587/HPA. • The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘loft conversion as built with 2 no. side facing dormers, flat roof windows and obscure glass side facing windows’ . Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The application was made retrospectively and at the time of my visit I saw the development to be complete. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. Reasons 4. The appeal relates to a two-storey, detached dwelling with a narrow façade, deep elevation, originally hipped roof, and with a subordinate and shallow two-storey wing to one side housing the principal entrance at ground floor. The area is residential in character comprising an eclectic mix of dwelling types and sizes. Due to the topography of the area, No 19, along with its contemporaries to this side of the road, sits slightly elevated above the levels of the highway. 5. The works that have been undertaken involve a hip to gable change to the rear, and box dormers to each side roof slope. They differ slightly from the drawings which accompanied the planning application with a hipped roof over the side wing retained rather than a flat roof as shown. I have considered the appeal based upon the development as constructed. 6. There is a significant variation in house types along Arthur Road with no particular rhythm or sense of uniformity to the overall street scene. Nevertheless, I observed that roof alterations were not commonplace, and where obvious change had occurred to a dwelling’s original roofscape, these, for the most part, appeared Appeal Decision 6004665 2 subservient, proportionate, and not overtly prominent. As a consequence, pitched roofs, albeit that they are mixed in style, are the most prevalent and dominant features in the locality. 7. The two side dormers are both large, spanning virtually the full length of the dwelling’s extended ridge line. Although they are set back from the property’s façade owing to the hipped roof to the front, they have markedly changed its original roof profile and now overwhelmingly dominate its form. Whilst set up slightly from the eaves, they give the impression of rising up and over the original ridge height with a clear linear visual association between the front top edge of each when viewed from Arthur Road. As a consequence, the ridge tiles running front to back seem to sit aloft a ‘box-like’ roof that appears as one single mass, rather than with each dormer being individually defined and framed as subservient additions within each side roof slope. 8. The result is a dwelling that now appears top heavy, disproportionate, and unduly prominent within the street scene. Its incongruous presence is exaggerated further by the elevated position of dwellings to this side of the road and the scale of the building overall; now more akin to a three-storey flat roof structure rather than a two-storey building with accommodation within its roof space. 9. The appellant has provided details of three specific examples within the borough where planning permission has been given for side dormer extensions. In each case these related to bungalows rather than a two-storey dwelling and none are within the vicinity of the appeal site. Furthermore, the plans show that the examples at Beechwood Avenue and Poverest Road proposed side dormers set noticeably below the dwellings’ ridge lines. That at Hayfield Road proposed dormers spanning around just half the length of the dwelling’s ridge. Further still, in each case, the proposal was considered and found acceptable within the context of its setting. That does not reflect my findings in relation to the appeal property. I do not consider any of these examples compare to the size, siting, context, or visual impact of the development at No 19. 10. I am mindful that the development was the subject of an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (Ref 22/03841/PLUD). However, this was refused and I understand a subsequent appeal was dismissed, firmly establishing the need for planning permission. Conclusion 11. Overall, by reason of its scale, bulk, and design, I find the development to be visually discordant and harmful to the traditional character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider established character and appearance of the street scene. As such, it conflicts with the aims and objectives of the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted July 2023, and the requirements of Policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan, January 2019, and Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021. Between them these seek to secure a quality of design, including for residential extensions, which respects the host dwelling and is compatible with the distinctive qualities of its surroundings. 12. For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR