Part one/part two storey rear extension Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 March 2021 by Conor Rafferty LLB (Hons), Solicitor Decision by Martin Seaton BSc(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/D5120/D/21/3267224 4 Longlands Park Crescent, Sidcup DA15 7NE • 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 M Eldridge against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bexley. • The application Ref 20/02442/FUL, dated 29 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 16 December2020. • The development proposed is a part one/part two storey rear extension Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area; and, • whether the personal circumstances of the appellant outweigh any harm in respect of the development. Preliminary Matters 4. The description of development has been taken from the appeal form and decision notice, as this more accurately reflects the proposal than the description given on the application form. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 5. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling with two storey outrigger and conservatory to the rear. Overall, its Edwardian style remains evident due to the largely simple shape of the property. Although a conservatory is present, it is of modest scale and sympathetically located alongside the outrigger so as not to detract from the general traditional feel. Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/21/3267224 2 6. The proposal would remove the conservatory and erect a single storey rear extension, wrapping around the current outrigger to span the entire width of the dwelling. A partial first floor rear extension is also proposed on the eastern side. It would comply with certain aspects of the Design Guidelines1 as they relate to extensions, such as the matching materials, roof pitch and window alignment. Nonetheless, while guidance for extensions to detached houses varies depending on the site, in all cases development should respect the character of the dwelling. 7. There is dispute as to whether the outrigger is an original feature. Even if this is the case, the addition of the proposal would result in a sizeable increase in built form at the site. While much back garden space would remain, the resulting mass of the property would nonetheless feel dominant when viewed from the rear, failing to appear subordinate and giving the appearance of an overdeveloped site. 8. The projection and wrap around nature of the ground floor extension, combined with the first floor element extending beyond the outrigger, would also lead to the rear elevation appearing contrived. This layout would disrupt the largely simple shape of the property befitting its era, resulting in an awkward addition which would feel at odds with the current overall traditional form of the property. 9. It is acknowledged there are a variety of dwelling styles in the area, and that the development would not be visible from the public highway. Nonetheless, vantage points are available from both the site and neighbouring plots, where the proposal would be experienced against the backdrop of the host dwelling. From these viewpoints, the overdeveloped and disjointed nature of the site in its own right would be clear and in this sense the proposal would not be compatible in the area. 10. For these reasons I find the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it would fail to accord with Policies H9 and ENV39 of the Bexley Council Unitary Development Plan, adopted 28 April 2004; Policy CS01 of the Local Development Framework Development Plan Document Bexley Core Strategy, adopted 22 February 2012; and the Design Guidelines, which together seek to promote good design. Personal circumstances 11.The proposal would improve the accommodation for a disabled family member, assisting with meeting the appellant’s needs. I must have due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include disability. It does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed. However, I am required to have due regard to the duty in arriving at my decision. 12. I do not doubt that the proposal would facilitate a better quality of living accommodation for the occupiers which would meet their specific needs. Nonetheless, this must be balanced with the adverse impacts identified, and in this regard, I am not persuaded that there are no alternatives to the proposal that could deliver similar benefits without conflict with the development plan. While I acknowledge the circumstances of the appellant, for this reason I attach only 1 Unitary Development Plan Design and Development Control Guidelines 2004 Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/21/3267224 3 limited weight to the need to address the specific circumstances as presented in this instance in accordance with the PSED. Other matters 13. The appellant states that the proposal would not have a negative impact in terms of landscaping, parking, noise and emissions, nor would it cause harm to neighbouring amenities, strategic views or the wider environment. However, to comply with national and local policy, any scheme would be expected to have regard to this. I find that the absence of harm in this respect, and from a lack of any objections from neighbouring residents, does not amount to a benefit. 14. The appellant also refers to the fact that an extension of up to 8.0m in depth is possible under permitted development (PD) rights, which is larger than the ground floor element of the proposal. However, it is the combination of the ground floor and first floor elements of the proposal that harm the character of the dwelling. Furthermore, the PD right for a larger extension would be dependent on an assessment of the impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and without the details of an alternative scheme there is no certainty that harm would not arise. In the absence of such certainty, only very limited weight is given to this as a fallback position. 15. Similarly, the appellant states that the depth of the extension would match that at No. 2 Longlands Park Crescent. However, the style and design of the property and extension are not comparable to the appeal site. The proposal should be assessed on its own site-specific circumstances and reference to other extensions nearby and the detail of submitted evidence does not attract any significant weight in this regard. Conclusion and Recommendation 16. I have concluded that the cumulative impact of the proposed extensions would result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and area. However, I have found that the need to address the specific circumstances as presented in accordance with the PSED must attract some limited weight in support of the proposal, and that the possibility of a fallback position would also attract some very limited weight. Nevertheless, I conclude that the weight attributed to these matters would not cumulatively outweigh the aforementioned harm. 17.There are no other material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore recommend that the appeal is dismissed. C Rafferty APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report, and, on that basis, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. M Seaton INSPECTOR