Single storey rear extension part pitched roof part flat roof

Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3202080 Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 8 January 2019 by D J Board BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3202080 63 Crofton Road, Orpington, Kent, BR6 8HU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under a development order. • The appeal is made by Mr Stuart Mayer against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref DC/18/00771/HHPA, dated 19 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 March 2018. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension part pitched roof part flat roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The provisions of the householder prior approval process require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises - taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers at number 65 Crofton Road, with particular reference to outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling. No 65 Crofton Road is also a two storey property and has a single storey rear addition. It shares a boundary with the No 63 and is located to the west of it. It has rear facing windows at ground floor level within the single storey addition. The kitchen and dining area window is large and closest to the shared boundary and there is also a kitchen window on the side elevation. Whilst No 65 has a reasonable sized garden the areas closest to the dwelling would be most likely to be used for sitting out. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3202080 5. The extension would be sited close to the boundary and the plans show a depth of 6m. I note that the appellant has attempted to keep the height of its built mass low. Nonetheless, a considerable proportion of the extension would appear above the existing fence. It would be readily visible and appear imposing, even with intervening boundary treatment. Due to its depth it would impact on the outlook from the dining area and from the part of the garden closest to No 65. From here, it would create an oppressive sense of enclosure. These likely impacts were borne out by my observations at the site visit. These effects would be compounded by the orientation of the proposal to No 63. This would lead to overshadowing in the late morning and afternoon and would add to the oppressive feel. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 65 Crofton Road, with particular regard to outlook. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the adjoining premises. Conclusion 7. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. D J Board INSPECTOR