First floor rear extension and garage conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 September 2018 by H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 27 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3205788 28 Princes Avenue, Petts Wood, ORPINGTON, BR5 1QS  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 Daniel White against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref. DC/17/05922/FULL6, dated 28 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 April 2018.  The development proposed is first floor rear extension and garage conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor rear extension, single storey front extension to include garage conversion and addition of rooflights to front and side, at 28 Princes Avenue, Petts Wood, ORPINGTON, BR5 1QS, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. DC/17/05922/FULL6, dated 28 December 2017, and 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001 Site Location Plan; 002 Existing Floor Plans; 003 Existing Elevations & Section; 004 Proposed Floor Plans; 005 Proposed Elevations; and 006 Block Plan. 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. 4) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until two spaces for the parking of motor vehicles by occupants of the dwelling and their visitors have been laid out within the site. These spaces shall thereafter be retained without obstruction for the parking of vehicles. Procedural Matter 2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, notwithstanding this description, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development also includes a single storey front extension and rooflights to the front and side, as described by the appellant on the appeal form and by the Council on the decision notice. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I, and for clarity I have included this description in the formal decision. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3205788 2 Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (1) the character and appearance of the appeal property and the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC); and (2) the living conditions of occupants of 26 Princes Avenue, with particular reference to outlook and access to light. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is a detached house located within a mixed street of dwellings, which although not identical, are cohesive as a result of shared designs and detailing. Bay windows are a characteristic feature of dwellings in the area, but they generally have pitched roofs or are set below an overhanging first floor. Whilst the appeal property shares some design similarity with other dwellings in the vicinity, it is unusual in that it has a prominent front extension and integral garage. 5. The appeal property is located in the Petts Wood ASRC, and amongst other criteria Appendix 1 to the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan 2006 (UDP) advises that developments likely to erode the individual quality and character of ASRCs will be resisted, and that reference will be made to the description of areas given in the appendix in determining individual quality and character. The assessment for Petts Wood notes that the houses were built in a number of similar though varied styles, but that the road layout and plot sizes were established in an overall pattern, and remain largely intact. Unlike the assessment for some of the other ASRCs, the appendix makes no mention of specific building design features of importance in Petts Wood. 6. This context of similar but varied styles remains evident. The appeal property shares similarities with other dwellings in the street in terms of overall design, form and materials, but contributes its own variety with the integral garage and front extension. The Council does not oppose the principle of the front bay, but rather its flat-roofed form. However, in my assessment the proposal would enhance the appearance of the dwelling by replacing the uncharacteristic integral garage. The inclusion of a pitched roof to the bay, as suggested would be acceptable by the Council, would appear visually cluttered alongside the existing front extension. I do not find that the design of front bays and porches are so uniform and distinctive in the locality that this proposal would undermine the character and appearance of the appeal property and the street scene, nor any important characteristic of the Petts Wood ASRC. 7. The appeal includes a first floor rear extension and front and side rooflights. I share the Council’s assessment that the form, scale, siting and materials of the rear extension are such that it would complement the host property, and would not affect the streetscene or the character of the ASRC. Whilst I note that an Article 4 Direction came into force in January 2018 in respect of any alteration or addition to any front roof slope facing the public highway, the Council does not oppose the introduction of front rooflights, and on the basis of the information supplied in this appeal I have no reason to reach a different conclusion. 8. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be acceptable in its impact on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the Petts Wood ASRC. It Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3205788 3 would accord with UDP Policy BE1 and guidance in SPG21 in that it would complement the scale, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings and areas, and would not detract from the existing street scene; and would accord with UDP Policy H10, which requires development in an ASRC to respect and complement the established and individual qualities of the individual areas. Living Conditions 9. The neighbouring dwelling, No.26, has been extended to the rear, such that it has a two-storey wing set some distance away from the boundary with the appeal property, and a single storey rear extension that is deeper than the extension at No.28. The main rear wall of No.26 projects beyond that of the appeal property. 10. The existing ground floor extension upon which the proposal would be built projects rearward of the first floor of No.26, but not significantly due to the staggered siting of the two dwellings. The proposal would have no material impact on the ground floor rooms of No.26, and due to the modest projection of the first floor beyond No.26 I do not consider that the proposal would create the sense of enclosure and loss of outlook envisaged by the Council. Whilst the view from the bedroom may alter, this would not equate to material harm. Given the orientation, access to light to the bedroom window would not be significantly altered by the construction of the first floor extension. 11. I therefore conclude that the outlook and access to light for occupants of 26 Princes Avenue would not be diminished to a degree that their living conditions would be harmed, and the proposal would accord with UDP Policies H8 and BE1(v), by ensuring that the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants and their environments are not harmed by inadequate daylight, sunlight or by overshadowing. I have had regard to the emerging policies cited by the Council but they do not alter my conclusion. Conditions 12. In addition to the standard time limit, I have attached a condition specifying the approved drawings as this provides certainty. It is also appropriate to control materials to match the existing dwelling, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the development and the area. As no parking details were provided with the application, I have included an alternative condition to that suggested by the Council to require the provision and retention of on-site parking. Conclusion 13. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. H Lock INSPECTOR 1 Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 2 - Residential Design Guidance