For a loft conversion incorporating rear dormer, front and rear rooflights and barn-hip roof extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 November 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3209384 62 Manor Way, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1NW  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 & Mrs Rons against the decision of the London Borough of Bromley Council.  The application Ref DC/18/00644/FULL6, dated 9 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 24 May 2018.  The development proposed is for a loft conversion incorporating rear dormer, front and rear rooflights and barn-hip roof extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion incorporating rear dormer, front and rear rooflights and barn hip roof extension at 62 Manor Way, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1NW in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. DC/18/00644/FULL6, dated 9 February 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2713-18-PL001 Revision P1 and 2713-18- PL002 Revision P1. 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is situated within the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) and Manor Way is a residential street which largely comprises two storey semi-detached houses of an Arts and Crafts style. However, whilst these give the area a relatively distinct character, many of the dwellings have been altered and extended over the years, including at roof level in a variety of ways. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3209384 2 4. I note that an Article 4 Direction was put in place in January 2018 which removed Permitted Development Rights for any alteration to the front roof slope, and that a previous Certificate of Lawfulness was granted which permitted a loft conversion, incorporating the introduction of a large rear dormer and side projection pursuant to reference 17/04955/PLUD. This as a fall-back position I must give significant weight and I consider would have a materially harmful impact upon the host dwelling. 5. I accept that unlike the Certificate of Lawfulness application, the appeal proposal would give rise to a widening of the ridge line which would slightly unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings of 60 and 62 Manor Way, however this would not be significant, having regard to the character of the street scene where the width of ridge lines vary. In addition, the appeal proposal would give rise to the construction of a far smaller and more sympathetically designed rear dormer that would be respectful to the original architecture found on the appeal site. 6. Therefore, I consider that the proposal would not detrimentally undermine the distinctive characteristics and rhythm of the street scene and would protect the character and visual amenities of the ASRC. From this basis I consider that the proposal complies with Policies H8, H10 and BE1 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan 2006 which together require all development proposals, including extensions to existing buildings, to be of a high standard of design and layout that should not detract from the existing street scene; and applications for development in the ASRC to respect and complement the established and individual qualities of such areas. Conclusion and Conditions 7. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 8. Other than the standard time limit condition, the Council has suggested a condition requiring the external materials to be used in the construction of the extension to match those of the existing building, in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area, this is an appropriate condition. In addition, for the avoidance of doubt, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is also imposed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR