Single storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 May 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3194972 76 George Lane, Bromley, Kent, BR2 7LQ.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 again st a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Danielle Rooney against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application ref: DC/17/05381/FULL6, dated 17 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed is single storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side and rear extension at 76 George Lane, Bromley, Kent, BR2 7LQ, in accordance with the terms of the application ref: DC/17/05381/FULL6, dated 17 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - Location Plan – scale 1:1250. - Block Plan as proposed – scale 1:200. Drawing no. RNS/375/1A: Existing Plans and Elevations – scale 1:100. Drawing no. RNS/375/2D: Proposed Ground Floor Plan – scale 1:50. Drawing no. RNS/375/3A: Proposed Elevations – scales 1:50 and 1:100. Drawing no. RNS/375/4A: Sections AA and BB – scale 1:50. Main Issue 2. The main issue here is the effect of the rearward projection of the extension upon the living conditions of existing and future residents of 78 George Lane in terms of loss of outlook. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3194972 2 Reasons 3. 76 George Lane comprises the end one of a terrace of post-war houses located within a mixed residential area. The scheme before me proposes a single storey extension that would project some 3.937m rearwards and wrap around the side of the house for the full depth of the dwelling. It would feature a flat roof with a height of approximately 2.7m. The design of the extension would respect the host building, as required by “saved” Policy H8 of the UDP1 and Draft Policy 6 of the SDLP2. 4. “Saved” Policy BE1 of the UDP seeks to protect existing residential occupiers from inappropriate development. Proposals should respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants and ensure their environments are not harmed by, amongst other matters, inadequate daylight, sunlight or privacy, or by overshadowing. Similar requirements are contained within Draft Policy 37 of the Council’s SDLP. 5. The neighbouring property at no. 74A is set away from the common boundary and does not possess flank-facing habitable room windows, such that the side extension as proposed would not result in any significant harm to the occupiers of that property. No. 74A also benefits from a single storey conservatory to the rear, which has a depth of 3.5m and currently projects beyond the rear of no. 76. This would have the effect of mitigating the effect of the proposed extension in terms of loss of light and outlook. 6. The extension would be set away marginally from the boundary with 78 George Lane by 100mm. This factor and the form of the existing boundary treatment will ensure that there would be only minimal loss of daylight and no unacceptable loss of outlook to that neighbouring property. Furthermore, having regard to the southerly aspect of these houses I am satisfied that any minor loss of afternoon sun to no. 78 would be within acceptable limits. 7. For all of these reasons I find upon the main issue that the rearward projection of the extension would not bring about any unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of existing and future residents of 78 George Lane and that develop- ment as proposed would accord with “saved” Policies BE1 and H8 of the UDP and Draft Policies 6 and 37 of the SDLP. Conditions 8. I have considered the three conditions put forward by the Council against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by the Planning Practice Guidance issued on 6 March 2014. 9. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development are specified at section 11 of the planning application form. They match, where appropriate, those used in the existing building and I consider them to be satisfactory. Accordingly, a separate condition in this regard is not necessary. 10. My reasons for the balance of the conditions are: 1 The London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan: July 2006. 2 The London Borough of Bromley Local Development Framework - Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan: November 2016. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3194972 3 11. Condition 1 is the standard commencement condition imposed in accordance with section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Condition 2, requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, provides certainty. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR