Two storey side extension and garage conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by Kevin Gleeson BA MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3198088 71 Bramerton Road, Beckenham BR3 3NY  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 Mrs Elizabeth Hughan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/18/00026/FULL6, dated 2 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 March 2018.  The development proposed is two storey side extension and garage conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for two storey side extension and garage conversion at 71 Bramerton Road, Beckenham BR3 3NY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/18/00026/FULL6 dated 2 January 2018 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: A1-17072/p. 3) 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the street scene within Bramerton Road. Reasons 3. Bramerton Road is primarily characterised by semi-detached houses although there are a number of large terraces. Properties are set back from the highway with front gardens and driveways allowing off-street parking. Many houses including the appeal property have been built with single storey garages to the side. Numerous properties have also been extended, rebuilding the garage and constructing an extension at first floor level. 4. The footprint of the proposed extension would match that of the existing single storey structure and it would be within approximately 0.9 metres of the side Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3198088 2 boundary. It would not extend beyond the front or rear of the existing dwelling and would be of a similar scale to other extensions within Bramerton Road. 5. Policy H9 of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan, 2006 normally requires a minimum space of 1 metre to be retained to the side boundary for the full height and length in respect of two storey developments. A similar policy is included in the Council’s Emerging Local Plan, 2016 as Draft Policy 8. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy H9 of the UDP and Draft Policy 8 of the Emerging Local Plan. 6. As I saw during my visit there are numerous examples of two storey side extensions within Bramerton Road which do not appear to provide a distance of 1 metre to the boundary although these may have been approved prior to the adoption of current policies. Accordingly the proposal would be in keeping with other examples of two storey extensions within the street scene. 7. Furthermore, the space provided by the proposed development would not be significantly less than the policy requirement. Consequently I consider that it would not lead to a lowering of existing spatial standards in the area. Moreover, elsewhere within Bramerton Road terraced properties create a lower spatial standard within the wider street scene than that which would be formed by the proposal. 8. I therefore find that the proposed development would not lead to a cramped form of development or result in significant harm to the spatial standards or the street scene of the area in which it is located. Accordingly, material considerations indicate that in this case a decision other than in accordance with the development plan is appropriate. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard implementation condition I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings with which the scheme should accord as this provides certainty. A condition relating to materials is also necessary to ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory. 10. Council officers identified a number of other conditions in the Committee Report to secure parking, introduce obscure glazing and restrict the introduction of windows or doors at first floor level within the flank elevation. However, such conditions are not necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms and therefore I have not included them in my decision. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed. Kevin Gleeson INSPECTOR