Part one/part two storey side/rear extension (ground and lower ground level) and alterations to the loft to include a side dormer

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/17/3185590 23 Footbury Hill Road, Orpington, BR6 0HP  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 Zack Moyo against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/00671/FULL6, dated 13 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 July 2017.  The development proposed is part one/part two storey side/rear extension (ground and lower ground level) and alterations to the loft to include a side dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. I consider that the main issues of the appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the effect of the scheme on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site is located on the western side of Footbury Hill Road and accommodates a semi-detached two-storey dwelling. The appeal dwelling currently has an existing two storey side extension, which due to the topography of the area has a garage at lower ground floor level, with a bedroom above that sits level with the ground floor of the dwelling. The surrounding area is largely residential, which includes semi-detached and detached dwellings of various architectural styles and layouts, including single storey bungalows and two-storey properties. 4. By the appellant’s own calculations, the host dwelling, including the existing side extension, is approximately 6 metres in width and the proposal would result in a large two-storey side extension that would extend from the host dwelling by some 3.75 metres, an increase of over 60%. A one metre gap would be left to the side boundary with No 21 Footbury Hill Road. 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. However, the Policy also states that ‘where higher standards of separation already exist within residential areas, proposals will be Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3185590 2 expected to provide a more generous side space’. I observed that in the main there is a good level of separation between the detached and pairs of semi- detached properties along Footbury Hill Road and therefore, I agree with the Council that the requirement for a greater level of separation in this case is required, to reflect the existing pattern of development. The proposal therefore runs contrary to Policy H9 of the UDP. 5. The existing side extension would be completely consumed within the proposed side extension, with the garage being converted into a room. It would therefore have the appearance of one very large extension to the original dwelling. Given this and the undeveloped nature of the other semi-detached property (No 25) to its side, I consider that the proposed side extension would appear as an overly large, bulky and dominant extension that would appear out of scale and keeping with the appeal dwelling. It would appear incongruous in the street scene and would significantly unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties. I acknowledge that many of the semi-detached properties in Footbury Hill Road are not symmetrical. However, I did not observe any examples in the surrounding area where one of the semi-detached pair had been extended or unbalanced to the same degree as is proposed in this case. Further, the combined width and height, along with the lack of side space to the neighbouring property would result in a development that would appear overly cramped within its local context. 6. The scheme would also include a loft conversion with a dormer window facing south. This would be a large feature and the bulk of the dormer would be evident from the road due to its siting. I consider that this would also represent an overly dominant feature in the street scene. The appellant has provided other examples of dormer windows in the immediate area, including Nos 25 and 31. However, I observed on my site visit that these appear to be smaller in scale and are therefore not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. 7. I accept that: the appeal dwelling is not listed; the appeal site does not lie within a conservation area; there is a wide variation of dwelling types and styles in the area; and the proposed side extension would use matching materials and complementary fenestration to the existing house and be generally consistent with the host dwelling in terms of architectural style (in isolation). However, these matters are not sufficient to overcome my above concerns. 8. The proposed part single and part two-storey rear extension would not be evident from Footbury Hill Road and the Council has not raised any concerns with regard to its effect on the character and appearance of the area. I see no reason to disagree. 9. In conclusion, the scheme by virtue of its siting, width, height and overall bulk, would be an overly dominant and incongruous form of development that would appear out of scale with the host dwelling. Further, it would appear cramped and would not reflect the existing pattern of development in terms of the spacing between dwellings. For these reasons, I consider that the proposed side extension and loft conversion would cause considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area. 10. The proposal therefore runs contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the UDP. In summary, Policies BE1 and H8 of the UDP seek to ensure that (amongst other Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3185590 3 things): development is of a high standard of design; the scale and form respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area; the space or gaps between buildings are respected or maintained where these contribute to the character of the area; and dormer windows are of a size and design appropriate to the roofscape. 11. I consider that the scheme also conflicts with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance 1: General Design Principles and Supplementary Planning Guidance 2: Residential Design Guidance. Further, the scheme does not represent good design and therefore runs contrary to Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Living conditions 12. Due to the topography of the area, the neighbouring bungalow at No 21 Footbury Hill Road is set at a lower ground level. The proposed side extension would be sited 1 metre from the boundary with No 21, would be two-storeys in height and would run along the entire length/depth of the neighbouring bungalow. This would result in a large and bulky structure in very close proximity to the side elevation of No 21. This, along with the elevated position of the appeal site would result in an overly dominant structure that would appear overbearing from the outlook of the side facing windows of No 21. In addition, the southern elevation of the proposed side extension includes several additional openings that would result in an increased level of overlooking that would cause a further loss of privacy to the occupants of No 21 from that which currently exists. For these reasons, I consider that the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 21. 13. The Council is also of the view that the proposed side extension would lead to a loss of light to No 21. However, given that the appeal site is located directly north of No 21, I am not of the view that the scheme would result in the loss of day/sunlight to No 21. Nonetheless, this does not in any way overcome my other concerns. 14. The two-storey part of the proposed rear extension would match that of the existing extension to the adjoining semi-detached property (No 25) and the Council has not raised concern with this part of the rear extension and I agree that it would not result in any harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 25. Notwithstanding this, the rear extension includes a single-storey section that would extend some 5 metres past the rear elevation of No 25. This would have a sloping roof at a maximum height of some 3.9 metres sloping down to a minimum height of approximately 2.5 metres. 15. I consider that the combined 5 metre depth of the extension and the height of the roof, along the common boundary with No 25 would result in an overly dominant and large flank wall that would unacceptably affect the outlook and appear overbearing from the ground floor window of No 25, that I understand serves a habitable room. The appellant is of the view that the extension would be the same height as the existing boundary fence. However, even taking into account the sloping topography, I consider that the extension’s high sloping roof would be clearly evident and prominent above the fence. 16. Due to the orientation of the proposed single storey rear extension directly to the south of No 25, I also consider that there would be an unacceptable loss of Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3185590 4 daylight and sunlight to the rear ground floor window of No 25. The scheme would therefore cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 25. 17. In conclusion on this main issue, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 21 and No 25 Footbury Hill Road. The scheme therefore conflicts with Policy BE1 of the UDP that sets out: development should respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and ensure their environments are not harmed by inadequate daylight, sunlight or privacy. The Council has referred to Policy H8 of the UDP in relation to this matter. However, this Policy appears to be of limited relevance to this main issue. Other matters 18. The Council has raised concerns that the scheme could be occupied as two separate dwellings. Given that I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, this matter does not affect my overall conclusion and therefore does not have a significant bearing on my decision. Consequently, I consider that there is no need to consider this matter any further. 19. The appellant has set out that the current two storey side extension is an eyesore built with a flat roof and is single walled with inadequate insulation and therefore not environment friendly. I also acknowledge that there were no objections to the scheme from neighbouring residents, including the occupants of Nos 21 and 25. However, I consider that these matters individually or in combination do not outweigh the identified harm and the associated development plan conflict. Conclusion 20. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, the proposal does not comply with the development plan when considered as a whole. In addition, the proposal does not represent sustainable development as set out in the Framework and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. There are no material considerations that outweigh the identified harm and the subsequent development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Jonathan Manning INSPECTOR