Two storey 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/18/3193386 106 Stapleton Road, Orpington, BR6 9TR  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 Gillian Parkin against the decision of London Borough of Bromley Council.  The application Ref DC/17/04186/FULL6, dated 6 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 November 2017.  The development proposed is two storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey rear extension at 106 Stapleton Road, Orpington, BR6 9TR in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/17/04186/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 drawing showing existing ground and first floor plans, plans & elevations drawing at 1:100 scale, 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 neighbouring properties, with respect to an over-dominant effect. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a relatively modern detached house in a row of similar properties, each with an attached single garage to one side. No.106 has gable ends, and is oriented with the ridge at right angles to the road. The extension would take the side walls and eaves lines out by 3.9 metres, with the extended roof having a hip end. The development could be glimpsed through gaps either side of the house, but it would have no material effect on the character and appearance of the house in the streetscene. 4. The neighbouring house at no.104 is downslope from the appeal site. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to an over-dominant effect. The officer Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3193386 2 report regarding no.104 says that this is likely because the extension “may have some impact upon sunlight and daylight”. The extension would be separated from the rear of the house at no.104 by the width of a side passage on the appeal site and that of the neighbour’s garage, which is on the common boundary. In this relationship, I consider that any reduction in daylight received at the rear of no.104 would be minimal. The back of the house would be in shade from itself and the existing house at no.106 until the sun reaches about south west in the sky. Thereafter, the extension would caste a shadow next door until the sun was approaching a westerly orientation. The hip end of the roof would help mitigate the effect. I consider that the impact on daylight and sunlight would be limited, and not warrant the withholding of planning permission for this reason. 5. There is an extension to the rear of the garage at no.104, but the openings to the main living accommodation appear to be on the rear elevation of the house itself, some distance from the appeal site. I consider that the proposal would not interrupt a reasonable line of sight from these openings. Consequently, I find that there would not be a material reduction in outlook arising from the proposal, and no significant overbearing or over-dominant effect on the occupiers of no.104. 6. The house at no.108 is on slightly higher ground. It has a rear extension near the common boundary with the appeal site. The drawings show that the appeal proposal would not project beyond the rear face of this extension. There would be a reduction in light received in a small, high level side window in the next door extension. However, there is a window and glazed double doors on its rear elevation, which would not be affected in terms of daylight or outlook. In these respects there would be no material harm to living conditions at no.108. 7. The extension would be to a modern 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. 8. I conclude that the proposal would not give rise to undue harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with respect to an over- dominant effect. 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. 9. 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. 10. There is therefore no reason to withhold planning permission, subject to the necessary conditions, and I allow the appeal. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3193386 3 G Garnham INSPECTOR