Single storey rear extension; a first floor side extension; a loft conversion with hip to gable extension and dormer extension to the rear; modification to the existing front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 September 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D5120/D/18/3207043 44 Westbrooke Road, Sidcup DA15 7PH  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 Scott Elliot against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bexley.  The application, Ref. 18/00016/FUL, dated 19 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 June 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension; a first floor side extension; a loft conversion with hip to gable extension and dormer extension to the rear; modification to the existing front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling; the semi-detached pair and the street scene of Westbrooke Road. Reasons 3. I saw on my visit that despite having already been extended, both the appeal property and No. 46 the other half of the semi-detached pair, for the most part have the character and appearance of the houses as originally constructed. The bay windows at ground and first floor levels, the dominant central gable feature, and the symmetry of the pair form a particularly attractive architectural composition in the traditional style that prevailed when Westbrooke Road was developed. Indeed, this design style can be found in a number of properties in the road, albeit in some cases compromised to a greater or lesser extent by subsequent alterations and additions. 4. Within the range of extensions now proposed for the dwelling, the Council’s concern is primarily in respect of the proposed hip to gable, whereby the gable ended roof would be flush with the main roof and thereby extend its existing ridge line across the full width of the extended dwelling. The other extensions, including the large rear dormer would on balance be acceptable, but the loss of the hipped roof would be contrary to paragraph 2.2.8 (3) of the Council’s Design and Development Control Guideline 2; would unbalance the semi- detached pair, and depart from the established character of hipped roofs in the Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/18/3207043 2 road, which also maintains the separation above eaves level between the semi- detached pairs. 5. The grounds of appeal say that there are several dwellings with gable ends in the road, namely Nos. 4, 18, 20, 22 and 32 and that these have changed the character of the road. However, not all of these are directly comparable because of lower heights, whilst the appellant’s further reference to flat roofed two storey side extensions is a different issue because they terminate at eaves level. Nor do I consider that hip to gable extensions in other roads are directly relevant to the street scene of Westbrooke Road. Furthermore, in the context of precedent, the planning officer’s report refers specifically to two of the above examples at Nos. 4 and 20 and notes that both were granted consent a great many years ago, long before the adoption of current policies. 6. I acknowledge the thrust of the appellant’s argument to the extent that previous extensions to other properties in a road can in principle change the character and appearance of the street scene to the extent that provides a basis for an argument that a further change of the same type would not be harmful. However, in this instance even if I were to accept all the appellant’s examples as being relevant, the hip to gable addition is still in a small minority in Westbrooke Road. And bearing in mind that I also take the view that given the original design of the host building such a change would be harmful through the loss of symmetry with No. 46 and the creation of more of a terracing effect with No. 42, I do not regard the appellant’s understandable aspiration for more living space to be of sufficient weight to justify the poor design of this part of the overall scheme. 7. Overall, I conclude that the proposed extensions would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling; the semi-detached pair and the street scene of Westbrooke Road. This would be in harmful conflict with the relevant parts of Policies H9 and ENV39 of the Bexley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2004; the UDP’s associated Design and Development Control Guideline 2, and Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (‘the Framework’). 8. I additionally consider that there would be a specific conflict with paragraph 118e) of the Framework. Although this paragraph does support upward extensions, it qualifies this by saying ‘……..where the development would be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, is well- designed (including complying with any local design policies and standards……….)’. However, I do not consider the number of existing hip to gable extensions in Westbrooke Road to be such as for them to ‘prevail’ and in my view the Council has demonstrated that the proposal would conflict with local design policies and standards. 9. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR