First floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2018 by Jonathan Manning BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/17/3184651 152 Felstead Road, Orpington, BR6 9AF  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 Mr & Mrs Ford against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/03172/FULL6, dated 5 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 August 2017.  The development proposed is first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located on Felstead Road and accommodates a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The immediate surrounding area is residential, with a mix of two-storey dwellings and single storey bungalows. I observed that there is a good sense of spaciousness within the street scene due to the generous spacing between the dwellings. 4. The scheme would result in the construction of a first floor side extension on top of the existing flat roof of the garage. The proposed extension would be some 3 metres in length and would have a width of approximately 2.7 metres. The proposed extension would also have a pitched roof measuring some 3.3 metres in height at its maximum coming down to 2 metres at the eves. 5. Policy H9 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (2006) (the UDP) sets out that the Council will normally require a proposal for two or more storeys in height to provide a minimum of 1 metre space from the side boundary of the site. The supporting text of Policy H9 advises that the reason for the usual requirement of a 1 metre separation is to avoid a cramped appearance and unrelated terracing, as well as avoiding impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residents. 6. In this case, the proposed extension would be located within 0.3 metres of the boundary with No 154 Felstead Road. Due to the lack of separation between the side boundary with No 154, along with the width and height of the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3184651 2 proposed extension, the proposal would detract from the spacious character of the area and would appear cramped. This would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The appellants have referred to a development at No 156 Felstead Road, which is in very close proximity to the appeal site. I accept that this has a first floor extension not dissimilar to that proposed in this case. However, No 156 differs in that the dwellings to the south are orientated onto Hillcrest Road and are separated from No 156 by their rear gardens. This results in the retention of a good level of space between the dwellings, in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, which is not the case here. 8. The appellants have also included two photos of other properties within Felstead Road. However, Photo 3 shows an extension under construction, which is set a reasonable distance from the boundary and the neighbouring property’s garage. Whilst Photo 4 shows two dwellings in close proximity to each other, the white rendered property is at ground floor level on the boundary, with a sloping roof. Further, the first floor dormer window is set well back from the eaves and would appear to be over 1 metre from the boundary. It is therefore clear that these examples are not comparable to the appeal scheme and I afford them little weight. 9. Interested parties have raised a number of other concerns. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, these do not affect my overall conclusion and have therefore not had a significant bearing on my decision. 10. In conclusion, the proposal by virtue of its lack of side spacing and scale would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme therefore conflicts with Policy BE1 and H9 of the UDP. In summary, Policy BE1 seeks to ensure that (amongst others) development should be of high quality design and complement the scale, form and layout of adjacent buildings and areas. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole. I understand that the purpose of the proposal is to improve the living conditions of the occupants. However, this is not sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. Consequently, there are no material considerations that outweigh the identified harm and development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Jonathan Manning INSPECTOR