Two-storey side extension with front and rear dormers

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 March 2018 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/17/3190942 8 Pilkington Road, Orpington, Kent BR6 8HR  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 Ms D Huson against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/03209/FULL6 was refused by notice dated 5 September 2017.  The development proposed is a two-storey side extension with front and rear dormers. Side dormer within the existing roof slope. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed in so far as it relates to the two-storey side extension with front and rear dormers. The appeal is allowed in so far as it relates to the side dormer within the existing roof slope. Planning permission is granted for a side dormer within the existing roof slope at 8 Pilkington Road, Orpington, Kent BR6 8HR in accordance with the terms of the application Ref:DC/17/03209/FULL6 dated 7 July 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) 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. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, Block Plan, 17/8/1, 17/8/2, 17/8/3, 17/8/4, 17/8/5 and 17/8/6 in so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted. Main issues 2. I consider the main issues to be: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties in Highwood Drive, with particular reference to outlook. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3190942 2 Reasons 3. The appeal property lies at the end of a row of dwellings of similar design. A distinct characteristic is the prominent front gables on these dwellings. 4. The proposal includes a side two-storey side extension with a prominent side gable and two front dormers. It would be set back some 0.5 metres from the existing front elevation. From my observations, due to the size, width and bulky gable end roof design, it would appear as a prominent incongruous addition, not in keeping with the scale and form of the host dwelling. In this prominent position, this would be to the detriment of both the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. 5. Saved Policy H9 in the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2006) seeks a minimum one metre space from the side boundary of a site for two-storey residential extensions. The proposed side extension would be in accordance with this part of saved Policy H9. However, the long rear gardens of neighbouring properties in Highwood Drive back onto the appeal site, creating a sense of space at this corner location. Saved Policy H9 states that where higher standards of separation exist, a more generous side space is expected. I consider this corner location to be such an area. 6. Due to local topography, the proposed side extension would be situated higher than the neighbouring properties in Highwood Drive. In this elevated position, I consider that the proposed side gable would appear as a prominent and discordant feature when viewed from the rear windows and rear gardens of the adjoining properties in Highwood Drive. This would significantly diminish outlook from these properties, to the detriment of the living conditions of these neighbours. 7. In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised including the example of a smaller side extension to No. 11 Pilkington Road. Due to its design and scale, that example is not directly comparable to the proposal before me, which I have determined on its individual merits. 8. For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposed side extension would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area and on the living conditions of neighbours. Thus, the proposed side extension would be contrary to saved UDP Policies BE1, H8 and H9, where they seek a high standard of design to ensure that new development complements the host dwelling and adjacent buildings, is compatible with development in the surrounding area and respects the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings. I consider these policies are broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework as far as they meet the Framework’s core principles; particularly that planning should be taking account of the different roles and character of an area, should be seeking to ensure high quality design and should be seeking to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing occupants of land and buildings. Side Dormer 9. The Council has not raised concern regarding the proposed side dormer within the existing roof slope. This would be a discrete addition that would match the adjacent side dormer. It would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and would have no adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbours. As the proposed side dormer within the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3190942 3 existing roof slope can be undertaken independently from the proposed two- storey side extension, I consider it appropriate to issue a split decision in this respect. The Council has suggested the imposition of standard time, matching materials and plans conditions. I consider it reasonable and necessary to impose such conditions. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR