Two storey side extension with single storey lean-to rear extension with gable end to the eastern façade; side covered access proposed for access between gardens

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 April 2018 by C J Leigh BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 08 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3194440 137 St Paul’s Wood Hill, Orpington, BR5 2SS  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 Paul Craddock against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/05257/FULL6, dated 11 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 January 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension with single storey lean-to rear extension with gable end to the eastern façade; side covered access proposed for access between gardens. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension with single storey lean-to rear extension with gable end to the eastern façade; side covered access proposed for access between gardens at 137 St Paul’s Wood Hill, Orpington, BR5 2SS in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/17/05257/FULL6, dated 11 November 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 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: A-001-01 Rev 01, A-100-01 Rev 01, A-104-01 Rev 01, A-010-01 Rev 01, A-020-01 Rev 01 & A-200-01 Rev 01. Main issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house, set back from St Paul’s Wood Hill and at a notably lower level than the houses to the west. The property reaches western boundary at ground floor, whilst at first floor there is a gap. 4. The proposed extension would see no change to the gap at ground floor, whilst at first floor the gap would be reduced. The appellant says this would be Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3194440 2 approximately 1.4m, whilst the Council in their Delegated Report say it would be 1.3m. Saved Policy H9 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006 states that the Council will normally require side extensions of two or more storeys in height to provide a minimum 1m space from the side boundary of the site for the full height and length of the flank wall of the building. Using either party’s measure, the proposal satisfies this at first floor, whilst at ground floor – as noted – there would not be any change from the current situation. The Council in their Delegated Report similarly acknowledge there would be a very similar appearance at ground floor. 5. The Council’s Decision Notice, though, states that the proposal does not comply with this requirement for a 1m gap, and that as a consequence the extension would appear cramped and out of character with the street scene. Yet the Delegated Report comments under an assessment of ‘side space’ that it is considered that the proposed layout ‘would not cause any harm to the spatial standards of the area’, and the Report’s discussion regarding ‘design’ similarly considers the extension would not appear out of character. The ‘Conclusion’ of the Report states that the proposal ‘would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area’. Nevertheless, the ‘Decision’ section states the application to be refused, and the Decision Notice sets out that refusal of planning permission. 6. I cannot see any harm arising to the character of the area from the proposed extension and, furthermore, cannot deduce why the Council decided to refuse planning permission following their earlier findings in the Delegated Report. The extension is well-designed to integrate with the host property and its neighbours. There would be adequate space around the house to ensure there is no cramped appearance to the house and no intrusion into the wider area. No terracing effect would occur between buildings, and the spatial standards in the road would be retained. The extension to the side and the rear would not impose upon the living conditions of the neighbours. 7. The proposed development would therefore not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and would satisfy the requirements of Policy H9. 8. The appeal is allowed. I have attached a condition requiring matching materials, to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. I have also attached a specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. C J Leigh INSPECTOR