Loft room extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 July 2018 by Clive Tokley MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D5120/D/18/3201664 103 Berwick Road, Welling DA16 1RL.  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 Ian Cole against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bexley.  The application ref 17/02869/FUL, dated 23 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 March 2018.  The development proposed is described as loft room extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Clarification of the proposal 2. The proposal is described on the planning application form as a loft room extension and the appeal form indicates that the description of the proposal has not changed. However the Council describes the proposal as “Provision of pitched roof over the existing two storey rear extension including a dormer extension to provide rooms in roof space”. 3. The Council’s reason for adopting this description is set out in the Officer report which refers to a red hatched area on the drawings which relates to a development formally certified as “permitted development” and a blue hatched area which the Council considers to be the extent of the development now proposed. However a careful analysis of the drawings indicates that the purpose of the hatching is to demonstrate that the overall addition to the volume of the roof resulting from the proposed dormers would not exceed 50 cubic metres. Further; the blue hatching does not include the roof slopes on each side of and beneath the proposed rear dormer which are clearly part of the proposal. 4. I have found no indication from the appellant that the application excludes the side dormer; on the contrary the grounds of appeal state that the application is for the side dormer already approved under the certificate of lawfulness along with a new extension to the rear projection. In my view the Council’s description does not accurately reflect the proposal. The appellant’s description provides limited information about the proposal; however it has not formally been changed and its terms embrace the full extent of the application. I have therefore used that description in this decision. Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/18/3201664 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The north side of Berwick Road is fronted by pairs of semi-detached houses of uniform width with consistent spaces between them. The main features at the front of the houses are two-storey bow windows. The houses at the western end of the frontage have front and rear gabled roofs, those in the centre of the row have front hips and rear gables and those at the eastern end (including the appeal house and its neighbours) have clipped hips at the front with rear gables. 7. Most of the houses to the east of Lyme Road retain their original roof form. However, an exception occurs at No 99 where the west facing roof plane has been replaced by a mainly flat-roofed extension. The appellant submits details of a similar proposal on the appeal house which the Council has determined would be “permitted development”. 8. The appeal property, in common with many of the nearby houses has a two- storey extension at the rear. Most have flat roofs but I saw that one of these extensions (to the west) has a pitched roof and the appellant draws attention to a number of similar pitched roofs in Lyme Road. However, none of these houses has a full third floor and whilst these extensions alter the appearance of the rear of the houses the original rear gables remain clearly expressed. 9. The proposal would introduce a full-height flat-roofed element together with a small area of lean-to roofs that would be alien to the roofscape at the rear of the houses. The narrow margins at the eaves and sides of the rear addition would result in this part of the proposal dominating the newly-created rear roof plane. Whilst at the rear of the house the proposal would nevertheless be visible from a number of nearby gardens. I consider that as a result of its bulk and design the proposal would be an incongruous addition that would create the appearance of an extra storey and would unacceptably detract from the character and appearance of the house and the area at the rear of the houses. 10. The proposal would conflict with the advice in the Council’s 2004 Design and Development Control Guideline 2 which indicates that extensions should be subordinate to the to the existing building and that roof space extensions should not be detrimental to the form of the existing roof. It would also conflict with Policy ENV39 and Policy H9 of the London Borough of Bexley UDP (2004) which indicate that the design and external appearance of development should be compatible with the character of the existing building and adjacent buildings. 11. The Lawful Development Certificate is an indication that the appellant could carry out part of the proposal without the need for permission from the Council; however as a result of its rearward projection the appeal proposal would be more harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area than the “permitted development” extension. Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/18/3201664 3 12. The appellant draws attention to a development similar to that the subject of this appeal that has been permitted by the Council at No 43 Swanley Road (Council ref 16/00582/FUL). The design and layout of the houses in Swanley Road is similar to those in Berwick Road. I saw that the Swanley Road extension has only partly been completed but the approved drawings submitted by the appellant demonstrate that it is almost identical to the appeal proposal. I am not aware of all of the circumstances of that permission but the Officer report comments that the extension permitted in Swanley Road results in unacceptable bulk and massing to the rear elevation of that property and creates a significant imbalance of the pair of properties. 13. I can understand the appellant’s concern about what appears to be a lack of consistency by the Council. Nevertheless I must determine the appeal on its own merits. Whilst the Council’s grant of permission in Swanley Road is a matter of fact this does not change my view that the proposal would be unacceptably harmful. I am also mindful that if I was to grant permission based on the Council’s earlier decision it would be difficult for the Council to resist other proposals of a similar nature which would be of further harm to the character and appearance of the area. 14. The appellant makes a number of references to the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework. The Revised Framework was published on 24 July 2018; however it does not change the approach to be taken to the consideration of the main issue that arises in this appeal. Conclusion 15. I have concluded that the proposal would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area and that the appeal should not succeed. Clive Tokley INSPECTOR