Two-storey rear and side extension, with reconfiguration of the front facade and a reconfiguration of the roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2021 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 April 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/21/3266684 88 Charterhouse Road, Orpington, BR6 9EW • 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 Brian Thaisen against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref DC/20/01522/FULL6, dated 27 April 2020, was refused by notice dated 11 November 2020. • The development proposed is described as the erection of a “two-storey rear and side extension, with reconfiguration of the front facade and a reconfiguration of the roof”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Since the date of the decision The London Plan 2021 (LP 2021) was published on 1 March 2021 and is now part of the development plan. The Council’s officer’s report and the appellant’s grounds of appeal both referred to Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan 2016 (LP 2016), which are now superseded. The main parties for the appeal were invited to express their views on the LP 2021 insofar as it relates to the appeal. 3. The application was amended through the submission of revised plans to remove an originally proposed rear terrace, which I have relied upon. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and upon the living conditions at 90 Charterhouse Road, with particular regard to visual impact, privacy, and light. Reasons Character and Appearance 5. The appeal property is a semi-detached, two-storey dwelling with a hipped roof and attached garage to the side built up to the common side boundary with No 86. The site is located within a residential street comprising broadly similar Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/21/3266684 2 style properties. Part of the proposal would involve rebuilding the garage in a similar position but with a first-floor extension over, to the side of the existing dwelling, and to be set away from the side boundary by 1m. 6. Despite some changes to the original front elevation of Nos 88 and 90 at ground floor level, this semi-detached pair retains a pleasing symmetry that is typical for the majority of buildings along Charterhouse Road, including at Nos 94, 96 and 98, which have been specifically drawn to my attention by the appellant. Whilst in these three cases the dwellings have all been extended sideways at two-storey, in each instance the roofs have maintained their original hipped form, thereby having respected the form and appearance of the existing building and maintaining the balance and symmetry of the semi- detached pairs. 7. In contrast, the appeal proposal would include a half-hipped roof over the side extension which would be at odds with the existing roof form and which would noticeably unbalance the symmetrical form of the building. Given the prominent position of No 88, which stands forward of the neighbouring semi- detached pair at Nos 86 and 84, this change would be prominent in the street scene, appearing as an incongruous and unsympathetic alteration. By failing to respect or complement the form of the host dwelling and adjacent buildings, the proposal would conflict with Policies 6 and 37 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (Local Plan). I also find conflict with Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the LP 2021, which have been drawn to my attention by the Council since the appeal was made as relevant replacements for LP 2016 Policies 7.4 and 7.6. These deal with delivering good design and for development proposals to respond positively to local distinctiveness. Living Conditions at 90 Charterhouse Road 8. To the rear, the property would be extended at single-storey with a chamfered corner adjacent to the side boundary with the attached property at No 90. At first floor level the rear extension would be set away from the boundary by around 2.2m. The proposal includes a Juliet-balcony and window to the side elevation of the first-floor extension facing towards No 90. A similar Juliet- balcony would replace the existing first-floor window in the part of the original rear elevation which would remain exposed. An obscured glass screen is proposed above the flank wall of the single-storey extension, around 0.45m from the boundary with No 90, extending to a height of 1.9m and projecting to a depth of 2.8m from the original rear elevation. 9. No 90 has a first-floor rear bedroom window nearest to the shared common boundary between the properties and a conservatory extension at ground floor. I am not persuaded by any substantive evidence that the proposal would have any significant impact upon daylight to the living spaces within the neighbouring property. I also accept that the obscure glazed panel would be likely to deflect any direct overlooking of the neighbour’s garden that would otherwise result from the side facing door and window openings. However, whilst the screen may not breach a 45-degree angle of sight from the neighbour’s bedroom window, as has been suggested by the appellant, it would still be visible in the outlook from this first floor living space at reasonably close quarters. Although not a solid structure, at this elevated level it would appear as an incongruous and imposing addition that would generate a noticeable Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/21/3266684 3 sense of enclosure that would be atypical for properties in the area which otherwise enjoy reasonably expansive and uninterrupted aspects from their first-floor windows. 10. Overall, due to the size and siting of the obscured glass screen, I find that the proposal would harm the living conditions at 90 Charterhouse Road. As such, there would be further conflict with Local Plan Policies 6 and 37, and LP 2021 Policy D3 insofar as the development would not be compatible with its surroundings or show respect for the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions at 90 Charterhouse Road. The conflict that I have identified with the development plan indicates that there would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed places and ones that create a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. These conflicts mean that the proposal would fail to satisfy the environmental objective for achieving a sustainable form of development. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR