Appeal 6002938

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the erection of two-storey front/side extension, erection of rear dormer roof extension incorporating a Juliet balcony and an enclosed balcony, alterations to front gable projection, installation of rooflights to front roof slope. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to the erection of single-storey side extension, excavation and alterations to land levels, erection of detached garage with patio above, erection of single-storey detached summerhouse with raised patio, formation of rear patio, erection of new front boundary wall and entrance gates and formation of additional vehicle crossover at [site address] , Croydon, Kenley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02878/HSE, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as the erection of single-storey side extension, excavation and alterations to land levels, erection of detached garage with patio above, erection of single-storey detached summerhouse with raised patio, formation of rear patio, erection of new front boundary wall and entrance gates and formation of additional vehicular crossover only: BL/DRG/3995/ 02, BL/DRG/3995/ 11, BL/DRG/3995/ 08, BL/DRG/3995/ 19, BL/DRG/3995/ 07 [name], BL/DRG/3995/ 10,BL/DRG/3995/ 06, BL/DRG/3995/ 12, BL/DRG/3995/ 18, BL/DRG/3995/ 17, BL/DRG/3995/ 01, [name] – [name], Flood Risk Assessment.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan numbers: BL/DRG/3995/ 18 and BL/DRG/3995/ 11. Appeal Planning Officer 6002938

Prior to the construction of the front boundary wall and entrance gates, details of the materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted at least one water butt of 100litre volume shall be installed on a downpipe attached to the roof at the rear of the property and be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council’s decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as, “Erection of two-storey front/side extension. Erection of single-storey side extension. Erection of rear dormer roof extension incorporating a Juliet balcony and an enclosed balcony. Alterations to front gable projection. Installation of rooflights to front roof slope. Excavation and alterations to land levels. Erection of detached garage with patio above. Erection of single-storey detached summerhouse with raised patio. Formation of rear patio. Erection of new front boundary wall and entrance gates. Formation of additional vehicle crossover.” This description has been used in the consideration of the appeal since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms. I am satisfied that there would be no prejudice to the appellant in using this description.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area; b) the living conditions of the occupiers of 9 and [address] (Nos 9 and 13) with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site comprises of a detached two storey dwelling set back from the road in an elevated position. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, characterised by gently undulating topography and a verdant, landscaped setting. The dwellings along this section of [address] follow a staggered building line, with a number of properties having been altered and extended.

There are a cluster of dwellings, including the appeal site, which are characterised by front elevations featuring gables set slightly off-centre. Whilst many of these gables feature a mock tudor style, the gable at the immediate neighbouring property has been rendered. Although the eaves of the proposed front projection would sit higher than those of the main dwelling, and its ridge would align with the principal roof, the proportions of the extension would reflect those of the existing and surrounding properties and would not appear unduly dominant within the front Appeal Planning Officer 6002938 elevation. The retention of a front gable projection, albeit with a glazed form, would continue to reflect the local distinctiveness of the area and preserve the positive contribution that projecting front gables make to the character of the area.

The proposed garage would be constructed with a flat roof enclosed by railings to create a patio area. The Council expresses concern that such a patio would be atypically positioned, given that outdoor amenity space is usually located to the rear of a dwelling. However, given its exposed position and limited privacy, it is unlikely that this space would function as the primary area for outdoor amenity. The proposed railings would act principally as a safety measure, both alongside the external staircase and around the roof of the garage where there is a notable change in levels. Their presence would not, in my view, result in harm to the wider character or appearance of the area.

The proposed siting of the garage would necessitate the removal of some established planting; however, a section of landscaping would be retained between the proposed steps and the existing driveway. This would provide some softening of the development within the verdant context of the street. There is a flat-roofed garage on the frontage of the neighbouring property, therefore it would not appear as an incongruous feature within the street scene.

The scheme includes a substantial retaining wall with fencing above. Given the sloping topography of the locality, retaining walls are not an uncommon or incongruous feature and therefore would not appear out of place within the surrounding built form.

The proposed front boundary treatment comprises of a low wall topped with railings and fencing, together with two sliding vehicular gates, all with an overall height of approximately 2 metres. Although vehicular gates are generally absent in the immediate area, front boundary treatments vary and include landscaping, low brick walls and close-boarded fencing. Within this mixed context, a 2 metre high boundary treatment and gates would not appear incongruous or out of keeping with the surrounding character. The proposed arrangement of a low wall with railings and fencing above would create articulation and contribute positively to the visual interest of the boundary, avoiding a uniform or overly stark frontage. As a result, the proposed boundary treatment would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area.

The proposed outbuilding would be positioned at the rear of the garden, adjoining both the rear boundary and the shared boundary with No 9. The garden rises towards the rear boundary, and while the undulating topography may allow for the limited views of the structure from the wider area, it would not be prominently visible in the street scene due to the elevated position of the main dwelling relative to the road. It would incorporate a monopitch roof, reducing its bulky appearance. The garden is also of sufficient depth and width to accommodate the structure without it appearing cramped or contrived within the site. Consequently, the outbuilding would read as a subservient and proportionate addition to the garden environment. Appeal Planning Officer 6002938

Due to the existing boundary treatments, the extent of associated hardstanding would not be readily perceived from the neighbouring gardens.

The proposed rear dormer would align with the main roof ridge and extend across the majority of its width, forming a substantial addition to the roof plane, with only the outer edges of the existing hipped roof remaining visible. Although neighbouring properties have undertaken roof enlargements of a similar scale, visible from the appeal site’s rear garden, those examples use matching materials and fenestration, enabling the dormers to integrate more successfully with the original roofs.

By contrast, the proposed use of grey/anthracite zinc, contemporary glazing, a single wide window and an enclosed balcony would prevent the dormer from assimilating into the roof form, thereby emphasising its bulk and prominence. While there are small rooflights present on the front elevations of some dwellings in the street, the proposed ‘cabrio’ rooflights, which open to form a balcony, would appear dominant and represent an incongruous feature within the established roofscape.

The Council appears to raise no concerns regarding the impact of the proposed vehicular crossover, single storey side and two-storey front/side extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Given the design, scale, layout and appearance of these elements of the proposal, I find no reason to disagree.

As the proposed garage, summerhouse, patio, single-storey side extension, vehicular crossover, front boundary wall and entrance gates would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and are physically and functionally severable from the proposed roof rear dormer extension and front roof-slope rooflights, they are capable of being constructed independently. A split decision would be appropriate in this instance. [name] find that the proposed two-storey front/side extension and alterations to front gable would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, these elements are not severable from the proposed roof extension.

In conclusion, the proposed rear roof dormer and front rooflights would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (LP) which seeks high quality design and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LoP) which seeks development proposals to respond positively to local distinctiveness and be of a high quality. The proposed garage with patio above, single-storey detached summerhouse with raised patio, formation of rear patio, new front boundary wall and entrance gates, vehicular crossover would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would therefore be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the LP and Policy D3 of the LoP. Living Conditions for Nos 9 and 13

The appeal property already sits forward of No 9, and the current single-storey element abuts the shared boundary. The proposed two-storey front/side extension would retain an adequate degree of separation between the properties. Although the proposal would result in a modest increase in projection by extending the single-storey element to align with the front elevation, the use of a monopitch roof Appeal Planning Officer 6002938 and the overall scale of the addition would not materially increase the sense of enclosure experienced at No 9. This is due to the staggered building line and the position of No 13, which is set appreciably further forward than the appeal property. For the same reasons, the proposal would not result in a significant loss of light or outlook.

The proposed summerhouse would be positioned along the shared boundary with No 9, which sits at a lower level than the appeal site. This part of the garden is already elevated. The existing close-boarded fencing, which is staggered to reflect changes in ground level, together with established hedging, provides effective screening. Although the upper portion of the summerhouse would be visible above the fence, the side elevation facing towards No 9 is blank, therefore ensuring that no overlooking or loss of privacy would arise.

The siting of the summerhouse in the corner of the garden, combined with its modest monopitch roof and its proximity to the neighbouring outbuilding at No 9, means it would sit comfortably within this part of the plot without materially increasing any sense of enclosure. The doors, on the front elevation, closest to the shared boundary serve a storage room and therefore are unlikely to be used regularly, while the bifold glazed doors are set further into the garden away from the boundary. Given these factors, along with the existing boundary treatments, the proposal would not result in harmful overlooking or a loss of privacy for the occupants of No 9.

The proposed enclosed rear balcony would introduce elevated views not currently possible from the dwelling. Due to the rising topography at the rear, the balcony would afford direct and intrusive views towards the rear garden of No 13, resulting in an unacceptable level of overlooking and a clear loss of privacy. The combined effect of its height, position and prominence would cause a significant perception of being overlooked, adversely affecting neighbouring residents’ ability to enjoy their private outdoor space. The appellant suggests that privacy screens and obscured balustrading could address these concerns. While such measures would reduce overlooking to some extent, they would not prevent occupants or guests from standing at the edges of the balcony, particularly given its size and capacity to accommodate several people. Its access from a communal cinema/kids’ room also increases the likelihood of regular use, heightening the potential for harmful overlooking. In contrast, the setback position of No 9 and the separation distance between that property and the balcony mean there would be no significant loss of privacy for those occupiers. Nevertheless, the harm identified in relation to No 13 would be unacceptable.

A third party representation has raised concern regarding overlooking of properties in [address], which is situated to the rear garden boundary of the site. However, given the distance of separation, the changing topography levels and existing boundary treatment the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to privacy.

In conclusion, the proposed rear roof dormer would have a harmful impact on the living conditions for the occupants of No 13 with particular regard to overlooking Appeal Planning Officer 6002938 and loss of privacy. It would conflict with Policy DM10 of the LP which seeks to ensure the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining properties are protected and Policy D3 of the LoP which seeks development proposals to deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity. The proposed summerhouse, single-storey side extension and two-storey front/side wraparound extension would not adversely affect the living conditions for the occupants of No 9. It would therefore be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the LP and Policy D3 of the LoP.

The appeal site is situated within [name] 1, representing the lowest risk of flooding from rivers and seas. It is also situated within a critical drainage area. A flood risk assessment (FRA) has been submitted detailing mitigation measures including permeable paving, soakaways and rainwater butts. The Council have indicated that these proposed measures are commensurate to the scale of the development. From the information before me and with a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the FRA, I am satisfied that the development would ensure surface water runoff is managed appropriately. Therefore, the proposal accords with policies SP6 and DM25 of the LP and SI 12, SI 13 of the LoP which seek to ensure surface water run off is managed as close to the source as possible.

Third parties have raised highway safety concerns relating to the proposed garage and second crossover. Although the Council have commented that the provision of a second crossover may not receive the necessary highway consent, as it is contrary to Croydon Council’s published crossover guidance, they have not directly raised concerns regarding highway safety. Notwithstanding any necessary highway consent, I am satisfied there would be sufficient access for a vehicle to safely manoeuvre on and off the driveway.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council against the tests of paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance: Use of Planning Conditions.

For the approved element of the proposal, a condition relating to the commencement of development and for development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for certainty and clarity. As this also secures compliance with the [name] – [name] and Flood Risk Assessment there is no need for separate conditions relating to these.

A condition requiring installation of a rainwater butt is necessary in order to ensure efficient use of water.

In order to protect the character and appearance of the area, I have imposed conditions relating to external materials, requiring further detail for the materials for the front boundary wall and gate as these details have not been provided.

The Council have suggested a condition restricting the use of the summerhouse to purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. However, if there is a future material change of use to create a separate dwelling, another grant of Appeal Planning Officer 6002938 permission would be required; without it, the use would be at risk of enforcement action. Therefore, this condition is not considered necessary.

For the reasons given above I recommend that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed in part and dismissed in part.