Second storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 October 2017 by AJ Steen BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15th November 2017. Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/17/3185486 57 Sutherland Avenue, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1QY  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 Ian Hay against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/02759/FULL6, dated 8 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 August 2017.  The development proposed is second storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for second storey side and rear extension at 57 Sutherland Avenue, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1QY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/17/02759/FULL6, dated 8 June 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: STH/01 and STH/02. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The effect of the proposed side and rear extension on the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area. Reasons 3. Sutherland Avenue is a residential street comprising substantial detached houses within large gardens. Most of the houses in the street largely fill the width of their plots, with narrow gaps to either side particularly at first floor. A number have been extended to the property boundary at ground floor, including the flat roofed garage and utility room to the side of no. 57. 4. Policy H9 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) normally requires a 1m space from the side boundary for the full height and length of the flank wall of the building. Background to the policy states the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3185486 2 reason for this includes seeking to prevent a cramped appearance or terracing effect. 5. The Council have applied Policy H9 in a prescriptive manner, based on the retained ground floor of the building being within 1m of the boundary. However, the proposed first floor extension would provide a 1m gap and would be set back from the existing gable ended front projection such that it would not be prominent. That first floor gap would reflect the relationship of other dwellings in the road to their boundaries. In addition, there is a gap between the neighbouring property and this boundary. As a result, the proposed development would not lead to a terracing effect, nor would the property appear cramped. 6. In conclusion, part of the resulting building would be within 1m of the property boundary, but in this instance I have not found any material harm to the character or appearance of the existing building or surrounding area. Policy H9 of the UDP states that there should normally be a 1m gap, allowing discretion in the application of this restriction. Given the lack of identified harm I conclude that this would be one of the circumstances where providing a gap on the existing ground floor would not be necessary. Therefore, the proposed development would not conflict with Policy H9 of the UDP. Conditions 7. To meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement. I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. A condition is necessary for materials to match those used on the existing house to maintain the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 8. For the above reasons and taking into account all other matters raised I conclude that the proposed extension would not conflict with the development plan and the appeal should succeed. AJ Steen INSPECTOR