Two storey side extension, loft conversion and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 November 2018 by Chris Baxter BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3208675 5 Sycamore Place, Bromley BR1 2FY  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 Mark Bruce against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/18/02661/FULL6, dated 11 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 24 July 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension, loft conversion and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension, loft conversion and internal alterations at 5 Sycamore Place, Bromley BR1 2FY, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: DC/18/02661/FULL6, dated 11 June 2018, 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: 1218.WD.01 Existing Floor Plans; 1218.WD.02B Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans; 1218.WD.03B Proposed Second Floor Plan; 1218.WD.05 Existing and Proposed Front Elevations; 1218.WD.06 Existing and Proposed Rear Elevations; 1218.WD.07 Existing and Proposed Side Elevation Garage; 1218.WD.08 Existing and Proposed Side Elevation Chimney; 1218.WD.09 Site and Location Plans. 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) Before commencement of the use of the garage and the drive hereby permitted the garage and the drive shall be completed in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans. Thereafter the garage and drive shall be kept available only for the purposes of the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and no development whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) or not shall be carried out so as to preclude the use of the garage and drive for the purposes of the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3208675 2 Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the development on: the character and appearance of the area; and the living conditions of the occupiers of 7 to 15 Barfield Road (Nos 7 to 15), with regard to privacy and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Sycamore Place is characterised by a group of large detached properties set close to one another within a cul-de-sac setting and with minimal gaps or space between the properties. Similarly the dwellings in Blackbrook Lane and Barfield Road are tightly spaced relative to one another and this area is characterised by dwellings of varied designs. 5 Sycamore Place (No 5) is sited towards the end of the cul-de-sac and this house has an extensive rear and side garden area. 4. The proposed side extension would have a sloping roof and architectural detailing which complements the existing property in terms of its roof form, style of fenestration and choice of external materials. The roof of the extension would be set down from the existing roof and would appear subservient and in keeping with the form and scale of the existing property. The proposed dormers would be small in scale and would not be incongruous additions to No 5. 5. The extension would reduce the gap between Nos 4 and 5. However, this cul- de-sac is characterised by a tight knit layout of the houses I consider that the extension’s scale and siting would be respectful of the pattern and appearance of the development within Sycamore Place. In that regard I consider that No 5’s plot is of an ample size to accommodate the extension without the extended housing appearing cramped with its plot. 6. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would not have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the area. The development would therefore accord with saved policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan of 2006 (UDP). That is because the siting, scale and design of the extension would be respectful of No 5 and its surroundings. Living conditions 7. No 5 backs onto the rear gardens of Nos 7 to 15. Those neighbouring rear gardens are quite long and when that length and the depth of No 5’s rear garden are taken into account, there is a significant separation distance between No 5 and Nos 7 to 15. Having regard to the scale of the extension, the ground level of No 5 relative to Barfield Road and the distance there would be between the extension and the rear elevations and gardens of the Nos 7 to 15, I consider that this development would have no adverse effect on the outlook for the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings. 8. Due to the dense layout of residential properties in the area, there are existing views into the rear gardens of Nos 7 to 15 from first floor windows in Barfield Road and Sycamore Place. The extension’s first floor windows and the rear dormer windows would face towards the gardens of Nos 7 to 15 and that could have some effect on the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3208675 3 properties. However, I consider the degree of physical separation between the new windows and the neighbouring windows and gardens would be such that there would be no unacceptable overlooking of the neighbouring properties. 9. For the reasons given above I conclude that the development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 7 to 15, with particular regard to privacy and outlook. I therefore consider that the development would accord with saved policy BE1 of the UDP because the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties would be safeguarded. The second reason for refusal refers to there being conflict with saved policy H8 of the UDP, however, I consider that not to be the case because this policy concerns character and appearance matters. I consider that the development would accord with paragraph 127(f) of the revised Planning Policy Framework of July 2018 because the development would maintain a high standard of amenity for existing and future neighbouring occupiers. Other matters 10. The Council has made reference to policies from the London Borough of Bromley Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan 2016. Whilst most of these policies appear to be similar to the policies of the UDP, I have attached very little weight as they currently only have emerging local plan status. 11. There is a concern that the proposal could have an effect on drainage and flooding in the area. However, there is no evidence before me demonstrating that there would be insufficient capacity to accommodate the drainage requirements arising from No 5’s extension. 12. Comments have been made suggesting that the current proposal for No 5 would be similar to an earlier proposal for Sycamore Place that was refused planning permission and dismissed on appeal. I have not been provided with details of that planning history and I therefore do not know the full circumstances of the previous decisions concerning Sycamore Place. I have in any event determined the appeal on its own merits. Conditions 13. In addition to the standard implementation condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring the use of matching materials in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. The Council have requested a condition ensuring that the parking spaces, turning area and garage is kept for that purpose. The road layout of the cul-de-sac of Sycamore Place is tight with limited space for parking and manoeuvring. I therefore consider the Council’s suggested condition is necessary. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Chris Baxter INSPECTOR