Single storey front porch addition and loft conversion to include two front positioned pitched gable dormers

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 September 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3200255 10 Standard Road, Downe, Orpington BR6 7HL  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 Beryl Clarke against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application, Ref. DC/17/05357/FULL6, dated 19 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey front porch addition and loft conversion to include two front positioned pitched gable dormers. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey front porch addition and loft conversion to include two front positioned pitched gable dormers at 10 Standard Road, Downe, Orpington in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. DC/17/05357/FULL6, dated 19 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 development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing No. Series PLN 035 & Revisions RSB PL: Plan Nos. Dr1; Dr2; Dr3; Dr4; Dr5 & Dr6; 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 Issues 2. The appeal dwelling is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the main issues in this appeal are: (i) whether the proposal would be ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Council’s development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (‘the Framework’), and (ii) if the proposal were to be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by ‘other considerations’, so as to amount to the ‘very special circumstances’ necessary to justify it. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3200255 2 Reasons 3. As regards the first issue, Policy G4 of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan 2006 (‘the UDP’) allows extensions to houses in the Green Belt subject to three provisos, all of which must be satisfied. (Draft Policy 51 of the Bromley LDF Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan 2016 has an identical wording and therefore need not be the subject of separate analysis in this Decision). 4. As regards Policy G4 the provisos are, in summary: (i) a limit of 10% in the net increase in floor area over that of the original dwelling house; (ii) a preclusion of extensions that would harm visual amenity or the open or rural character of the area, and (iii) a preclusion of significant detriment to the dwelling’s character and appearance. 5. The Council has not invoked any other adopted policy in its refusal, although Policy G4 has to be interpreted in conjunction with exception c) of paragraph 145 of the Framework, which requires extensions or alterations not to be disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. In making my assessment in this appeal I consider it reasonable to equate ‘open and rural character’ with the openness of the Green Belt, whilst it would also seem more logical to appraise item (iii) before considering (ii). 6. Turning firstly to the 10% limit on net floorspace increase, the officer’s report estimates the additional level of accommodation to be 58sqm, which with the proposed porch of almost 3sqm would almost double the existing internal floor space of 67.5sqm. In calculating the proposed increase, the Council has not allowed for the floor area of the existing loft to be deducted from that of the proposed living space within the area of the roof following its conversion. 7. Neither Policy G4 nor its supporting text explain whether existing loft space can be counted in a calculation of any net increase. However, with the omission of any reference to it in the officer’s report, I might reasonably assume that because the loft space is not currently habitable it does not, by definition, fall to be considered. In the absence of arguments to the contrary, I am also inclined towards that view, with the consequence that given the proposed doubling of the existing floorspace in the dwelling, proviso (i) would not be satisfied. 8. In respect of proviso (iii), the Council argues that the increase in the height of the roof and the front dormers would add bulk to a relatively modest dwelling and would significantly alter its appearance. However, the increase in ridge height would also be modest and the two dormers would be set well up from the eaves and well in from the roof edges, with a considerable gap between them. The apex of the dormer gable would only be a small distance below the new ridge, but because they would have pitched rather than flat roofs most of their bulk would in fact be set well below the ridge line. 9. The result would be a well proportioned and pleasing architectural composition that would not in any sense draw the eye as being of an unusual or harmful character or appearance. Indeed, I consider it would be a significant improvement on the existing building, which on my visit appeared somewhat dated and forlorn, albeit I accept that its poor condition would have contributed to that perception. In short, on the matter of character and appearance I find that the appeal scheme would fully comply with the requirement of proviso (iii) of Policy GB4 that there should be no detriment. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3200255 3 10. As regards proviso (ii), the officer’s report says the proposal would result in ‘significant harm to the visual amenities, character and openness of the Green Belt by reason of its scale and incongruous form of development’. However, Standard Road has in my view a more suburban than rural character and appearance, and I fail to see why the extended building would be in any way incongruous within the wide variety of dwelling types and sizes that form the street scene of Standard Road. This is especially so given that they include properties with dormers. As regards its scale and the effect on the openness of the Green Belt, even after its extension No. 10 would be smaller than many of its neighbours, and neither the dormers nor the porch would project further than the flank wall of the adjoining No. 12. In summary on proviso (ii), I conclude that the appeal scheme would have no harmful effect on the visual amenity or the openness of the Green Belt. 11. Overall as regards Policy G4, I conclude that the proposal fails proviso (i) as regards the 10% floorspace limit but meets both provisos (ii) and (iii). When considered in the light of paragraph 145c) of the Framework, my view is that in qualitative terms and as a matter of planning judgement the appeal proposal would not amount to a ‘disproportionate addition’. Nonetheless, the Council is entitled to quantify the term ‘disproportionate’ as being more than a net increase of 10% in floor space. And on that basis alone I must conclude that the scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which paragraph 143 of the Framework says is harmful by definition and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 12. Turning to the second issue, there is a significant ‘other consideration’ in the form of permitted development serving as a ‘fall back’ position for the appellant. In November 2017 a Lawful Development Certificate (‘LDC’) was granted by the Council under reference 17/01542/PLUD for a ‘Loft conversion with a rear dormer to create habitable accommodation’. I have not been provided with a detailed comparison between the appeal proposal and the permitted development formally confirmed by the Certificate, but I note that the latter includes a large rear dormer and a similar floorspace to that now proposed. I also consider that in respect of the effect on character and appearance of the host dwelling, the appeal scheme with its improved roof design is preferable to the one that could proceed under the LDC. 13. Furthermore, the grounds of appeal have drawn my attention to the fact that in April 2015 the Council granted retrospective planning permission for ‘roof extensions to provide first floor accommodation including front / side / rear dormers and rooflights and elevational alterations’ at ‘Redriff’, Birdhouse Lane, Downe, Orpington (Council planning reference 14/04762/FULL6). 14. In that case, the only part of the development that required planning permission was the front facing dormer, which if it were to be removed from the scheme would still result in the same additional floorspace. Officers advised Members that they could reasonably regard this to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ required to allow a departure from UDP Policy G4, and this advice was duly followed with a grant of planning permission. Clearly this is as relevant an analogous situation with the current appeal as there could possibly be. Other considerations include my earlier finding of an improvement in the character and appearance of the dwelling as a result of the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3200255 4 proposal, and indeed the very reason for the application, namely to upgrade the building from its very limited and dated facilities to form modern family accommodation. 15. Overall, I find the other considerations described above, when taken together, are sufficient to clearly outweigh the single cause of harm by reason of inappropriateness, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development in the Green Belt. There would be no harm to the objectives underlying Green Belt policy and no actual harmful conflict with UDP Policy G4 and Draft Local Plan Policy 51. The proposal would additionally be in full accord with Government policy in Section 13: ‘Protecting Green Belt Land’ of the Framework. 16. I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for certainty and in the interests of proper planning. A condition stipulating matching materials is needed to safeguard visual amenity. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR