Demolition of existing single storey side extension and garage and construction of a double storey side and single storey extension with new hipped roof over the double storey side extension and flat roof over the rear single storey extension with 2 no roof windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2017 by A A Phillips BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 14 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/17/3183405 2 The Glen, Eastcote HA5 2RX  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 Naran Patel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 50457/APP/2017/871, dated 8 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 July 2017.  The development proposed is the demolition of existing single storey side extension and garage and construction of a double storey side and single storey extension with new hipped roof over the double storey side extension and flat roof over the rear single storey extension with 2 no roof windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Eastcote Park Estate Conservation Area. In the event of harm in these respects whether any harm identified to the significance of the heritage asset is outweighed by public benefits. Reasons 3. The appeal property comprises a two storey semi-detached residential property which is located in a predominantly residential area. It has a hipped roof form with a single storey garage to the side which appears to be part of a larger single storey extension. It forms a pair of semi-detached houses with No 1 The Glen and the pair is situated in a prominent location adjacent to an attractive area of open space around the junction of St Lawrence Drive and The Glen. 4. The site is situated in the Eastcote Park Estate Conservation Area which is characterised by there being a limited suite of house types which are mostly semi-detached with some detached properties. Properties are attractively detailed and the pair of which the appeal property is part has rounded horizontal windows, deep roof overhangs and smooth rendered walls. At my site visit I saw no evidence that other pairs of this type have been extended to the side and as such these pairs retain their original character and make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. From the rear the uniformity between the pair of properties is also evident. The residential area is verdant and spacious with areas of open land integrated Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/17/3183405 2 into the public realm, generous spaces between the buildings particularly at first floor level and large rear private amenity areas. 5. Therefore, in accordance with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in determining this appeal I attach great weight to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Eastcote Park Estate Conservation Area within which the site is located. 6. The proposed single storey side and rear extension would have a large flat roof and would have an overall depth of approximately 3.6 metres. The proposed flat roof structure would dominate the rear of the property and have a harmful effect on the visual quality of the rear of the property. Furthermore, it would unbalance the existing symmetrical relationship between the appeal property and No 1 and compromise the established pattern of development which is important to the character, appearance and visual integrity of the Conservation Area. 7. Although the single storey flat roof extension would not be prominent from the public realm to the front of the property it would nonetheless fail to satisfactorily harmonise with the host building, the pair of which it is part and the wider Conservation Area setting. 8. The appellant argues that the rear extension could have been carried out under permitted development rights. However, as part of the wider scheme it does require permission and as such it is entirely reasonable to consider whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in which would be located. 9. The Council’s reasons for refusal identifies that the proposed two storey side extension would fail to be a subordinate addition and would therefore be detrimental to the architectural composition of the original semi-detached dwelling, among other harm. However, this appears to be partly attributed to there being a lack of set back from the front at all levels. Having examined the plans carefully it is clear to me that a suitable set back has been incorporated into the design of the two storey side extension. Furthermore, the ridge of the extension would be lower than the main ridge of the original property. These elements have been included in order to reduce the potential dominance of the extension in relation to its host. Although these design features would have some effect on mitigating potential dominance that may arise from the proposal there are other relevant considerations in relation to the effect of the two storey side extension on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 10. The two storey side extension would interrupt the important symmetry between the pair of semi-detached houses which in this location is a particularly important feature in the Conservation Area. The highly visual relationship between the two properties would be compromised to an unacceptable degree and as such the extension would be seen as a visually intrusive and prominent discordant extension at odds with the established pattern of development in the locality. I do not dispute that the proposal meets some of the technical criteria set out in the development plan and in particular the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions December 2008 (the SPD). However, I do not consider that the proposal would satisfactorily Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/17/3183405 3 harmonise with the scale, form and architectural composition of the host property, the pair of properties or the wider Conservation Area setting. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Eastcote Park Estate Conservation Area. 11. The appellant understands that each appeal should be determined on its own merits and identifies a case where it is claimed that planning permission was granted next door. However, I have no details of that particular case, or evidence that it was a proposal that was dealt with at appeal. It appears that the case identified may date back to 2008, since which date the current development plan has been adopted and the Framework has been introduced. As such it has limited relevance to the current appeal. 12. Given the scale of the proposal within the context of the Conservation Area as a whole, I consider that it would cause less than substantial harm to its character and appearance. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. 13. The appellant has not demonstrated specific benefits that may arise from the development. Although there may be some small economic and social benefits associated with construction activity and the provision of a larger dwelling, these do not, in my judgment, outweigh the harm that I have found. 14. As such it conflicts with Policies BE1 and HE1 of the of the Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies Adopted November 2012, Policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) Saved Policies 27 September 2007 and the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions December 2008 and the Framework. Among other objectives these seek to ensure that Hillingdon’s distinct and varied environment is conserved and enhanced, achieve a high quality design for all new buildings, proposals should not result in the inappropriate development that erodes the character of suburban areas and complements the amenity and character of the area. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and taking into account other matters raised I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and that the appeal should be dismissed. Alastair Phillips INSPECTOR