Single and two storey extension to side elevation

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, 03 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3194065 2 Waring Drive, Orpington, BR6 6DW  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 Dr Ahmed Sharif against the decision of London Borough of Bromley Council.  The application Ref DC/17/04229/FULL6, dated 11 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 November 2017.  The development proposed is single and two storey extension to side elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single and two storey extension to side elevation at 2 Waring Drive, Orpington, BR6 6DW in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/17/04229/FULL6, dated 11 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: drawings numbered 00001, 00002 & 00002.1. Main Issue 2. I consider that this is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a 5 bedroom detached house on a corner plot in an area of post-war housing. It has 2 attached single garages to one side, that nearest the house having been converted into a bedroom. The main part of the proposal is to extend purpose-built ground floor accommodation to the far end of the garages, and to the full depth of the house. First floor accommodation would be extended to the width of the first garage, then a pitched roof would be installed over the furthermost part of the single storey extension. The plot is wide, and the Council acknowledges that there would be no harm to adjoining living conditions, while the site is large enough for adequate parking and turning space for cars. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3194065 2 4. The width of the building at ground floor level would not be increased. I estimate that the two storey part of the extension would add less than half to the existing width of the upper floor of the house. The main eaves line and ridge would be taken over this part of the extension, and the single storey part would have a pitched roof to match it. The added bulk would be noticeable, but significantly less than that of the host house. The house as enlarged would not be out of scale with its plot, or protrude beyond the adjoining building line. Thus the extension would not be intrusive in the local streetscene. The existing pattern of fenestration would be replicated. Matching materials need to be used, in the interests of a satisfactory appearance, and a planning condition can achieve this outcome. 5. The proposal also includes a porch to replace the existing open canopy. It would be constructed of brick, with a lean to roof. While relatively large, I consider that it would not be out of scale with the house as enlarged, or out of keeping with it. It would mean the loss of a horizontal component to the front elevation that is characteristic of houses of this style and age. However, I note that the Council has given planning permission for a pitched roof porch on a house opposite the appeal site, and other examples have begun to appear elsewhere along Waring Drive. 6. I have found the proposal to be satisfactory in terms of character and appearance. I need to impose a condition requiring compliance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty and to ensure the extension is built as proposed. 7. I conclude that the proposal would not be materially detrimental to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. It would not conflict with Policies BE1 & H8 in the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (2006) [UDP]. Among other things, Policy BE1 requires development to be attractive; complementing adjacent buildings and areas in terms of scale, form, layout and materials; and not detracting from the existing street scene. Policy H8 requires a residential extension to respect or complement the host dwelling and be compatible with the surrounding area. 8. 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. 9. There is therefore no reason to withhold planning permission, and I allow the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR