Side extension, two storey and single storey rear extension and loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 December 2017 by Elaine Gray MA(Hons) MSc IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/17/3182521 124 Copse Avenue, West Wickham BR4 9NP  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Angela Walters against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/00256/FULL6, dated 19 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 August 2017.  The development proposed is side extension, two storey and single storey rear extension and loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on:  the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and;  the living conditions of neighbours, with particular regard to privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site at No 124 is a detached two storey property which is located on a corner site within a predominantly residential area. The proposed development would extend the property and reconfigure the roof to provide additional accommodation. 4. The existing roof form comprises a main hipped roof, with a series of smaller hipped roofs projecting to the side, and a single hipped roof projecting to the front, above the double height bay window. The arrangement of different scales and ridge heights produces an attractive architectural composition that makes a positive contribution to the street scene. 5. By contrast, the proposed development would create a ‘crown’ roof, with a flat top and sloped sides. This form would significantly increase the bulk of the roof, and would depart from the traditional hipped design that is prevalent in the area. The visual hierarchy and variation within the existing roof form would be done away with, thus detracting from the appearance of the building. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3182521 2 6. The front projecting hipped roof would be replaced by a gable whose large scale and incongruous shape would be out of keeping with the character of No 124. My attention has been drawn to other examples of gable features in the area. However, these are generally triangular in shape, and the majority sit well beneath the height of the main roof. 7. In addition, it is proposed to add a dormer window to the side elevation of the property. Policy H8 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) states that dormer windows should be of a size and design appropriate to the roofscape and sited away from prominent roof pitches, unless dormers are a feature of the area. Although it would be away from the principle elevation, the dormer would be visible from the public realm on Inchwood, and its significant scale would add excessive bulk to No 124 at high level. Whilst there is some degree of screening by trees on this side, such planting could not be relied upon to mitigate the harmful impact of the new development, as it could be cut back and removed at any time. 8. I have been directed to examples of dormers at 12 and 14 Copse Avenue. Whilst two dormers have been added to the main elevation of No 12, their relatively small scale helps to assimilate them within the frontage. No 14 has a large box dormer which is out of keeping with the appearance of the property, and so would not lend support to the appeal proposal. On the evidence before me, it appears that dormer extensions, particularly of the proposed scale, are in the minority within the surrounding area. As a result, these examples would not justify the harm I have identified. 9. As the alterations to the rear of the property would be less apparent from public view, I am satisfied that these would not unduly harm the appearance or appearance of the area. I accept that the proposed materials would reflect those used nearby, and that the whole house would be rendered and painted white. However, this has not led me to a different conclusion on this issue. 10. Drawing these factors together, I therefore find that the development would materially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would thus be contrary to UDP Policy BE1, insofar as it requires that development should be imaginative and attractive to look at, and should complement the scale and form of adjacent buildings and areas. 11. My attention has been drawn to a planning permission which was granted at 103 Copse Avenue for the enlargement of the dwelling. However, the full circumstances in which the development was found to be acceptable are not before me, and it is not clear if they are directly comparable to the scheme before me. I can therefore afford this matter little weight, and moreover, each case must be considered on its own merits. Living conditions 12. The Council is also concerned about the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents at 122 Copse Avenue. The proposed velux windows, whilst sizeable, would face towards the roof of No 122, and would not impinge significantly upon the privacy of its occupants. Any views from the velux windows toward the outdoor space at No 122 would be oblique, and would not give rise to material harm. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the scale of the development would not be so great as to unacceptably harm levels of daylight and sunlight at No 122. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3182521 3 13. On the first floor of No 124, the side elevation which faces No 122 would be extended to the rear by a further 3m or so. In terms of the outlook from the first floor windows of No 122, the extension of the adjacent wall would lead to some increase to the sense of enclosure for the neighbouring occupants. However, from my observations on site, this would cause minor, although not unacceptable, harm to the living conditions of those occupants. The main outlook from the rear of No 122 along the garden would not be changed by the proposed development. Due to the intervening distance, I am satisfied that the proposed single storey garden room would not affect the outlook from or privacy at No 122. 14. I therefore conclude that the living conditions of neighbours would not be unacceptably harmed by the development. It would thus accord with UDP Policy BE1, which amongst other things seeks to ensure that development should respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings. Other Matters 15. I have been provided with modified versions of the appeal scheme for consideration, and I note the appellant’s preference for the ‘second scheme (v.2)’, with a reduced and modified side dormer, and reduced rear fenestration. The appellant has also suggested conditions with the aim of modifying the proposed rear corner roof adjacent to No 122, and the rear glazing. However, these changes would not allay my concerns regarding the overall acceptability of the scheme, and so I can afford them little weight. Conclusion 16. Despite my finding that the development would not harm the living conditions of neighbours, it would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Elaine Gray INSPECTOR