Replacement of existing conservatory with a cavity wall extension to accommodate a patient couple with special needs. No increase in existing footprint

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 February 2018 by Nicholas Taylor BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/17/3184297 43 Armytage Road, Hounslow TW5 9JH  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 Hamid Dawood against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 00044/43/P9, dated 16 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 August 2017.  The development proposed is replacement of existing conservatory with a cavity wall extension to accommodate a patient couple with special needs. No increase in existing footprint. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of the existing conservatory with a cavity wall extension to accommodate a patient couple with special needs, with no increase in existing footprint at 43 Armytage Road, Hounslow TW5 9JH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 00044/43/P9, dated 16 June 2017, 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: proposed drawings ref 1625B/pl/02. 3) The external facing materials on the extension hereby approved shall match those on the existing bungalow. Preliminary Matter 2. The Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Guidance, in force when the application was determined, has been superseded by the Residential Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted on 20 December 2017. I confirm that I have had regard to the current, adopted SPD in reaching my decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are:  the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property and the wider area; and Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/17/3184297 2  its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling with regard to loss of outlook from the property. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached, dormer bungalow, in a residential area. It occupies a fairly prominent position at the corner of two streets. At the present time, there is a substantial, single storey, flat-roofed extension across the full width of the rear of the bungalow. Attached to that, extending further out across the full width, is a much less substantial structure, described by the appellant as a conservatory, comprising a canopy with infilled sides but open onto the garden. The Council says that the rear extension was built without planning permission but is immune from enforcement action but it is not clear whether this refers to only the substantial extension or both it and the canopy. At the time of my site visit, an extension to the side of the bungalow, physically separate from the appeal proposal, was under construction. 5. The proposed development would involve the replacement of the conservatory / canopy with a masonry-built, full width, single storey addition to the flat- roofed extension. The Council says that, in total, this arrangement would extend the ‘original’ bungalow by 7.3 metres at the rear but, in practice, the overall length of the flat-roofed element beyond the existing hipped-roof, rear off-shoot would be considerably less than that. Consequently, the depth of the proposed extension would not appear, from Alcock Road, to greatly exceed the maximum 3.65 metre depth advised in the SPD. Although the depth from the original back of the bungalow would be much greater than that on the boundary with the adjoining bungalow at No. 41, that property has, itself, a rear extension. 6. Standing behind the high boundary fence and near to the existing, tall detached outbuilding at the end of the plot, the proposed extension’s limited additional depth and low height profile would reduce its visual impact on the street scene. In relation to the bungalow’s existing, lawful footprint, and it’s overall design, the extension would be subordinate in scale and bulk, thereby satisfying one of the basic requirements of the SPD. The Council refers to removal of the hipped roof on the existing rear off-shoot but the submitted elevations are contradictory on that aspect of the proposals. Even if part of the hipped roof were to be removed, the profile of the bungalow’s main roof would remain as it is and the overall bulk of the extension would not be increased as a result. A condition could be imposed to ensure that materials match those on the existing building, thereby providing a better appearance, on balance, than the current arrangement. 7. Overall, therefore, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the appeal property or the wider area. Accordingly, in that respect, it would comply with the SPD and those aspects of Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (LP) which seek to achieve design which responds acceptably to the context and character of areas. It would comply with the development plan as a whole and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) with respect to design of development. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/17/3184297 3 Living conditions 8. As referred to above, the adjoining bungalow, at No. 41, has a rear, single storey extension which culminates in a similar, semi-open canopy arrangement to that on the appeal property. The proposed extension would not exacerbate the current arrangement or be so large as to unduly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling due to loss of outlook from their property. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with LP Policies CC2 and SC7 with respect to the amenity of current or future residents, in terms of outlook or being overbearing, or with the SPD. In that regard, the proposal would comply with the development plan as a whole and the Framework. Conditions 9. I agree with the Council’s suggested conditions and, in addition to the usual commencement condition, I have specified the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, it is also necessary to impose a condition requiring materials to match the existing. Conclusion 10. The appellant has stated that the extension is required to accommodate family members with special needs. Such personal reasons may be material considerations but, in this case, as I have found no substantial harm from the proposal in terms of the main issues, they have not had a significant bearing on my decision. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the appeal should be allowed. Nicholas Taylor INSPECTOR