First floor side extension to form 2 No en- suite and internal remodelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 September 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3206389 Willow Wood, Grasmere Road, Orpington, Kent, BR6 8HB.  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 and Mrs Matt Day against the decision of the Council for the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/18/00942/FULL6, dated 28 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 April 2018.  The development proposed is described as first floor side extension to form 2 No en- suite and internal remodelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor side extension to form 2 No en-suite and internal remodelling at Willow Wood, Grasmere Road, Orpington, Kent, BR6 8HB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/18/00942/FULL6, dated 28 February 2018, 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: GEN 100 Revision A and MD01. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The property the subject of this appeal, Willow Wood, is a detached chalet bungalow. The property is located within a larger residential area comprising an eclectic mix of housing types, ages and architectural styles. 4. It is sited on a prominent island corner plot facing Grassmere Road but located between Windermere Close and Langdale Close. Due to its siting between the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3206389 2 roads, there are no properties immediately on either side and therefore it is seen as open in the context of the street scene. 5. When viewed face on from Grassmere Road, despite the form of the single storey side addition, the principal façade does have a degree of symmetry and appears as a well mannered property in the street scene. However, due to the three dimensional form of the building, when viewed from either of the side roads or from the rear, the apparent form and character of the street façade has not been maintained following the construction of later additions at first floor level. 6. The appellants propose a first floor side extension built over the earlier single storey side flat roof addition. The proposed extension, when viewed from the front, would be in the form of a hipped roof and from the rear a gable end. The sloping roof to the flank end would have two high level rooflights. 7. Policy H9 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan Adopted July 2006) (UDP) normally requires a side space of new residential development and extensions to be at least 1.0 metre and more generous side space on corner plots. The Council states that the retention of space around residential buildings is essential to ensure adequate separation and to safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents. Further, it says that it is important to prevent a cramped appearance and unrelated terracing from occurring and to protect the high spatial standards and level of visual amenity which characterises many of the Borough’s residential areas. 8. From the Council’s evidence I understand that the side space between the existing single storey extension and the side boundary varies from 1.35 metres at the front reducing to about 0.2 metres at the rear. At the eaves level this side space will not change by reason of the proposed first floor addition. Further, the proposed roof addition would slope steeply away from the northern boundary of the site and therefore the side space would, in any case, increase with the height of the roof. 9. Accordingly, and while also having regard to the unique location of the dwelling on an island plot separated from neighbouring dwellings to either side by access roads, I do not consider that the lack of side space would, in this case, have a detrimental impact as suggested by the Council or necessarily be contrary to the objectives of UDP Policy H9. 10. In addition, I consider, in the light of the earlier first floor extensions, that this proposed further extension would not represent such a significant change in the three dimensional form of the current property as to cause harm to it. On balance it would if anything serve to soften its appearance when viewed from a number of public vantage points. 11. I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that, on balance, the proposed development would not cause harm to the architectural integrity of the existing property as already extended or, by reason of the design and proximity to the side boundaries of the site, the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with UDP Policies BE1, H8 and H9 as they relate to, along with other things, the quality of design and the need to maintain the existing street scene. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3206389 3 Conditions 12. 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. 13. In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Conclusions 14. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR