Erection of a two-storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 July 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3200710 19 Broxbourne Road, Orpington, Kent, BR6 0AZ.  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 Alan Ramadan against the decision of the Council for the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/05663/FULL6, dated 7 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 January 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension at 19 Broxbourne Road, Orpington, Kent, BR6 0AZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/17/05663/FULL6, dated 7 December 2017, and the plans submitted with it, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: DP/3041/PP 01 to 18 inclusive. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of numbers 17 and 21 Broxbourne Road in terms of a potential impact on light, privacy and outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property, 19 Broxbourne Road, is a two-storey detached dwelling house. It is located between numbers 17 and 21 Broxbourne Road. 4. The appellant proposes a two-storey side and rear extension. Planning permission (Ref: DC/16/01642/FULL6) has previously been given for a side and rear extension as illustrated on drawings ALT-05-PL01, 02, 03A, 04B, 05B, 06 and 07. In this respect it is to be noted that there is a duplication of drawing Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3200710 2 numbers ALT-05-PL03A, 04B and 05B and the planning permission was granted on the basis of the Council’s copy of the revised drawings having been stamped 16/01642 and date stamped 28 July 2016 to differentiate between the approved and the previously submitted drawings. However, the appellant, by way of the planning application, now the subject of this appeal, wishes to extend the previously permitted two-storey rear extension by a further 1.7 metres, towards number 17, so that it would be full width across the rear of the dwelling. It is also proposed to increase the height of the roof of the permitted extension so that the eaves and ridge match those of the roof of the main dwelling. 5. Unlike the design previously approved, where the roof of the two-storey rear and side extension was to be set down below that of the main roof, the proposed extension, because of the increase in the ridge height, would not appear as a subservient addition. Nevertheless, given the scale of the development already permitted I consider, on balance, that any further impact to the character and appearance of the host property and street scene would be so limited as to not cause any material harm. 6. Number 21 is located to the south of the appeal property and extends beyond the rear building line of the appeal property. Further, although the ridge height of the extension would be raised, the roof would be sloping up and away from the established eaves line. For these reasons I am not persuaded that the proposal would necessarily impact on the existing first floor window in the flank wall of number 21, or appear either so dominant or overbearing as to cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property. 7. Number 17 is located to the north of number 19 and the proposed development would result in some loss of sunlight over and above that of the approved scheme. However, given the depth of the proposed extension, the fact that the roof would slope away from the established eaves line and the location and orientation of the windows in the outshot to the rear of number 17, I do not consider that the proposed development would result in such a significant loss of sunlight as to cause harm. For the same reasons I am not convinced that the extension of the approved scheme, as now proposed, would result in the rear extension, as extended, appearing either so visually dominant or overbearing as to cause significant harm to the outlook and amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. 8. I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of numbers 17 and 21 Broxbourne Road in terms of a potential impact on light, privacy and outlook. It would therefore accord with Policies BE1 and H8 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (July 2006), as they seek to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings. Conditions 9. The conditions follow from those suggested by the Council. To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building. 10. In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3200710 3 Conclusions 11. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR