Single storey rear side and front extension, alterations to catslide roof and associated internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 November 2017 by P W Clark MA MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/17/3187495 71 Corkscrew Hill, West Wickham BR4 9BA  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 Mark Power against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/02202/FULL6, dated 11 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 September 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear side and front extension, alterations to catslide roof and associated internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear side and front extension, alterations to catslide roof and associated internal alterations at 71 Corkscrew Hill, West Wickham BR4 9BA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/17/02202/FULL6, dated 11 May 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 external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials matching those of the existing house as indicated in section 11 of the application form. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:71CH_00 revision A, 71CH_010 revision H. Reasons 2. The sole main issue is the effect of the proposal on character and appearance, both of the property itself and of the street scene. On this part of Corkscrew Hill, there is development on only one side of the road, facing public open space. The property is one of a number of detached dwellings, extending from number 45 to number 73 which feature tile hanging and/or black timbers on their upper floors. They may once have featured a consistent degree of generous space separation at first floor level but many have now been extended so that is no longer a uniform characteristic. 3. Extensions take a variety of forms but most respect the tiled or timbered upper floor convention (an exception is number 55 featuring a highly prominent gabled truncation of a pyramidal roof). Some of the houses, including the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3187495 2 appeal site, originally featured what is known as a “cat-slide” roof in which the pitch of the main roof is continued down to ground level over a single storey side wing or garage. Some of these have been replaced by conventional first floor side extensions. (That at number 65 with a crown roof, those at 69 and 73 on either side of the appeal site with full hipped roofs). 4. By contrast, the current appeal proposal would replace the existing “cat-slide” roof with one much steeper, enclosing both an enlarged roof space and a garage widened to extend to the boundary. Other elements of the proposal are not the subject of the Council’s objection. They would be identical to a scheme which already benefits from a Lawful Development Certificate and so I concur with the Council’s view that they are acceptable. 5. It is rare, if not unique, for a property in this section of Corkscrew Hill to extend right up to the boundary even if only at ground floor level, so the Council’s concern with protecting the existing spacious character of the street is understandable. However, the replacement “cat-slide” roof would retain some space between numbers 69 and 71 at first floor level, in addition to the metre or so of space existing at number 69. 6. Moreover, the Certificate of Lawfulness scheme would disrupt the “cat-slide” roof with the flank of a rear-facing flat-roofed second-floor extension (described as a “dormer”). As the Council’s own report correctly points out, this would “result in an extension which is less sympathetic to the host building than that currently proposed given the design of the side dormer.” Because of the stepped alignment of the houses along the tortuous alignment of Corkscrew Hill, the flank of the appeal property is prominent, as is the flank of others, so this consideration is as important to the street scene as it is to the appearance of the house itself. 7. For this reason, I conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the existing building and on the street scene. It would comply with policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan which, amongst other matters, require regard to be had to the pattern and grain of existing spaces and streets and which require buildings to comprise details and materials that complement, not necessarily replicate, local architectural character and integrate well with surrounding streets. It would not comply with Bromley Unitary Development Plan policy H9 which requires side extensions to maintain 1m space to the boundary but it would comply with policy BE1 which requires buildings to complement the scale, form, layout and materials of adjacent properties and not detract from the street scene. 8. I therefore allow the appeal, subject to the three conditions suggested, for the reasons given by the Council. P. W. Clark Inspector