Ground and first floor side and rear extension with interior alterations and remodelling and environmental upgrade to include whole house heat recovery, rainwater harvesting, wall insulation and triple glazing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 February 2018 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th February 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/C5690/D/17/3190558 47 Cambridge Drive, London SE12 8AG  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 Crossley against the decision of the London Borough of Lewisham Council.  The application Ref DC/17/103191, dated 22 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 October 2017.  The development proposed is a ground and first floor side and rear extension with interior alterations and remodelling and environmental upgrade to include whole house heat recovery, rainwater harvesting, wall insulation and triple glazing. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The proposal would result in a number of alterations and extensions to the property but the Council’s concern relates only to the two storey side extension and the impact it would have on the character and appearance of the area. 4. The detached properties along Cambridge Drive have similar designs and the spacing between them is a positive feature of the character and appearance of the area. The relatively uniform layout, along this flat and straight road, emphasises this original character. Whilst the set back from the street and the intervening landscaping within the front garden of some properties does reduce the importance of the first floor gaps between properties in some cases, generally, I found the high level gaps to be of particular importance. 5. The development would be set a metre back from the frontage and a passageway would be retained to the side. However, the neighbouring property is built close to the boundary. It is clear from the plans that the eaves of the two properties would be extremely close and despite the hipped roofs, any perceived gap between them would be almost entirely lost at first floor level. Given the remaining character of Cambridge Drive, I agree with the Council that this would detract from the setting of each dwelling and importantly, from the overall character and appearance of the street scene. Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/17/3190558 2 6. The design and materials of the proposal would result in an addition that would be in keeping with the appearance of the original house. The hipped roof would have a lesser impact than a side facing gable but nevertheless, the overhanging eaves and the bulk of the first floor and roof would contribute to the perceived loss of space between these properties. I am not satisfied that the set back, together with the scale of the side extension overall, would represent good design in this particular context. The reduction in perceived space between the buildings would detract from the character and appearance of the area. 7. Given my findings, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 15 of the Core Strategy 2011 as it seeks the highest quality of design and requires that development is sensitive to the local context and responds to local character. It would also conflict with Policy 30 of the Development Management Local Plan 2014 which similarly requires a high standard of design that results in a positive relationship with the existing townscape. The proposal satisfies many of the detailed requirements of Policy 31 but would conflict with the requirement for sensitive, high quality, site specific design that respects the setting of the original building and creates an urban form which contributes to local distinctiveness. As the policies generally accord with the design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework, I afford them considerable weight. 8. The Council’s Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document was updated in 2012. Whilst this proposal would satisfy the minimum distance stated with regard to being set back from the frontage, the guidance also advises that the depth of the set back will depend on how prominent the building is, its location, the design of the surrounding buildings, and the character and rhythm of the street as set by distances between buildings. In some cases, it suggests that the character of a street will mean that a side extension is not appropriate. Overall, I do not find that, in these particular circumstances, the document offers support for the proposal. 9. Reference has been made to a number of other two storey side extensions in the area. The extension at 58 Cambridge Drive is of a significantly different design. This does not follow the form of the dwelling but its contemporary appearance and flat roof do reduce, to some extent, the scale of development at a higher level. The development at number 69 has more similarities with the current proposal but it is set against what appears to have been a historic neighbouring side extension that has significantly altered the spatial character and appearance of these particular properties. Reference has also been made to a very similar extension at 15A Upwood Road, which although of a similar house design, lies within an area that does not have the uniformity of character of Cambridge Drive. I have also had regard to a number of other extensions that have been referred to but on the basis of the limited information available to me, I am unable to assume that the circumstances associated with each one, is directly comparable. 10. It is clear that the Council have accepted similar two storey side extensions whilst the current development plan policies have been in place. They advise that their position has changed and that no such additions have been accepted within the past year. However, applicants should be able to expect consistency in decision making when similar proposals are considered under the same Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/17/3190558 3 policies. I am mindful however that the relatively small number of more recent permissions have not been so numerous as to have resulted in significant overall change to the character and appearance of this particular area. Some of the extensions, particularly the more historic ones in the wider area, do demonstrate what harm can result. I am not satisfied that the more recent examples, in close proximity, are entirely comparable to the proposal before me but they are similar enough, to provide significant weight in favour of the proposal. 11. The development would include environmental benefits and would improve the quality of the housing stock. Whilst these benefits could be achieved, to some extent, without this particular side extension, these are also matters that weigh in favour of the proposal. 12. Overall, although the design reflects the character of the dwelling and would have some set back from the frontage, I am not satisfied that in these circumstances, the form and layout of the side extension would represent good design in this particular context. The reduction in perceived space between the buildings would detract from the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with the policies of the development plan. There are matters that provide weight in favour of the proposal, including the significant weight I afford to the existence of other recently approved extensions in the same area. However, I am not satisfied that these matters are sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR