One & two storey side & rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 March 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: Tuesday 3rd April 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3192983 23 Willett Close, Petts Wood, Orpington, BR5 1QH  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 Dudley Port against the decision of London Borough of Bromley Council.  The application Ref DC/17/04171/FULL6, dated 6 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 29 November 2017.  The development proposed is one & two storey side & rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for one and two storey side and rear extension at 23 Willett Close, Petts Wood, Orpington, BR5 1QH in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/17/04171/FULL6, dated 6 September 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 extension 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: unnumbered drawings showing existing ground floor and first floor layouts (1:50 scale); existing elevations (1:100 scale); proposed plans & elevations drawing (1:50 & 1:100 scales); 1:500 scale site plan; and 1:1250 scale site location plan. Main Issue 2. I consider that this is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of no.21 Willett Close, with respect to an overbearing effect on outlook and overshadowing to the rear windows and outdoor amenity space. Reasons 3. The one storey extension would be at the rear outer corner of a semi-detached house, and would wrap around the side and rear of the upper storey part of the proposal. The ground floor element would be well separated from the boundaries towards no.s 21 & 25, on either side, and the upper floor would be well away from the boundary with no.25, the other half of the pair. The Council does not object to these aspects of the proposal. I have no reason to Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3192983 2 take a different view. I shall therefore focus my attention on the effect of the two storey rear extension on living conditions to the rear of no.21. 4. A previous scheme at the appeal site was dismissed on appeal, decision dated 30 March 2017, Ref APP/G5180/D/16/3167124. This was for a two storey side and rear extension. That extension would have projected over a metre from the main side wall of no.23, towards no.21, and outwards from the main rear face by around 3.8 metres. My predecessor found that it would harm both the character and appearance of the host property and the area, being clearly visible in the streetscene; and the living conditions of the occupiers of no.21, with respect to outlook, reduction in daylight and overshadowing. I consider that the present propsal is materially different, in three main ways. The roof form (a hip end) would replicate that at an extension at no.21; the side wall of no.23 would not come any closer to no.21 than at present; and the rear projection of the extension would be reduced by 0.9 metres. 5. The appeal house is set back from the road significantly further than the adjoining pair. Thus, notwithstanding that no.21 has a two storey rear extension itself, the proposal at no.23 would project more than 5 metres beyond the end of the neighbouring extension. However, I consider it is likely that, from the bedroom at the end of the extension, a 45 degree line of sight would pass beyond the outer corner of the proposed first floor at no.23. A similar relationship would apply in the kitchen below, from where the main feature in the outlook would be the neighbour’s own detached garage, close to the back of the house. The appeal proposal would not be seen from the main ground floor living accommodation on the far side of no.21, the line of sight being blocked by the existing extension at no.21. 6. The main outdoor amenity area at no.21, nearest the house, is on the far side of the garage from the appeal site. The extension would be clearly visible from here, but as it would be no closer than the existing upper part of no.23, and would have a lower pitched roof with a hip end, I consider that it would not unduly dominate outlook. 7. The proposed two storey extension would lie to the south of the rear of no.21. As a result of the extension there, however, I estimate that any overshadowing effect on rear windows would be confined to that part of the day when the sun moves from due south to south southwest in the sky. As the main window affected is for a bedroom, I consider that this reduction would be of limited significance. During the same period, the main ground floor openings at no.21 would be overshadowed by its own extension. There would be a limited increase in overshadowing of the amenity area at no.21, to add to that already caused by the garage next to it. However, I consider that neither of these impacts would cause harm to living conditions next door to the extent that planning permission should be withheld as a result. 8. The extension would be to a semi-detached house in a street of similar house types, in terms of design and materials. It is therefore necessary to impose a condition to require the use of matching materials, in the interests of a satisfactory appearance. I also need to impose a condition requiring compliance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty. 9. Additional matters raised by local residents include the effect on property values and the presence of a large outbuilding at the rear end of the appeal site. Property values are not normally a material consideration in an appeal Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3192983 3 such as this, and the outbuilding is not part of the proposal before me. Neither of these matters nor others raised in objection materially affect my findings on the main issue. 10. Overall, and on this basis, I conclude that the proposal would not give rise to undue harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no.21 Willett Close, with respect to an overbearing effect on outlook and overshadowing to the rear windows and outdoor amenity space. It would not conflict with policies from the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (2006) [UDP] cited by the Council. Policy BE1 concerns the design of new development. Among other things, it requires that proposals should respect the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings and avoid harm by inadequate sunlight or by overshadowing, although outlook is not included among the types of impact listed. Policy H8 has criteria pertaining to character and appearance. 11. Two draft local plan policies were also referred to, Policies 6 & 37 in the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan, submitted for examination on 11 August 2017. I have not been advised of the current position. However, the policies are very similar in content to the two UDP policies referred to, and I consider that they do not raise significant new issues to which I need to attach weight. 12. There is therefore no reason to withhold planning permission, and I allow the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR