Double & single storey and side & rear extension with pitched roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/17/3190478 76 Monmouth Road, Hayes UB3 4JJ  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 Suthandrarajah Suthan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application, Ref. 49888/APP/2017/3429, dated 20 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 November 2017.  The development proposed is a double & single storey and side & rear extension with pitched roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, Nos. 74 & 76 as a semi-detached pair, and the street scene of Monmouth Road. Reasons 3. I saw on my visit that together with No. 74 the appeal dwelling forms a pair of semi-detached houses that essentially retain their original symmetrical form. Together with the visual impact of their angular and prominent siting on a corner of Monmouth Road I consider that the pair make a positive contribution to the street scene. 4. The front part of Nos. 74 & 76 already breaches a notional building line following the curvature of the road between the nearest front corners of Nos. 72 and 78. Because of this and the angled siting, the area of garden to the flank of No. 76 where the extension is proposed is particularly exposed to public view. A proposal where the flank elevation is as prominent as the front is relatively unusual and in my opinion it is important that the scale and design of the scheme recognise and deal with the resultant constraints and challenges. 5. However, turning firstly to the front elevation, on its ground floor the extension would line in with the forwardmost part of both houses but be appropriately set back at first floor and roof levels, with the latter also correctly set down in accord with the Council’s HDAS guidance. With the mono pitched roof over the front ground floor and the fenestration matching the existing living room and front bedroom windows, the front elevation would in itself be aesthetically pleasing. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/17/3190478 2 6. However, contrary to the assertion in the grounds of appeal, the mere fact of the ground floor lining in with the bay windows does not ‘maintain symmetry’. In the context of dwelling design, symmetry is the repetition – albeit handed- of a more substantive feature, for example the characteristics of all or part of an elevation. And to the contrary, in this instance the front of the extension would appear quite different to any part of the existing pair of semis. 7. The other problem is that because of the alignment of the road around a bend the extension’s return corner would be uncomfortably close to the pavement and much closer than any other dwelling in the road. And given the substantial set back of No. 78 this would appear incongruous and cramped in the approach from the junction with Crowland Avenue. 8. In respect of the flank elevation, this would extend to encompass the rear extension and the submitted plans show it hard up to the existing detached garage on the site. Quite apart from this precluding pedestrian access to the rear garden, other than through the garage itself, the juxtaposition between the extension and the garage would again appear as an awkward and cramped feature in the street scene. The removal of the garage and provision of a parking space would resolve the issue, but this is not part of the appeal scheme. 9. The considerable depth of the flank extension, for the most part two storey apart from the ground floor nibs at the front and rear, would be broken up in visual terms by a full height gable including a new entrance door. However, I agree with the Council that this gable would be at odds with the modest character and simple mid C20th design of the host dwelling and the other half of the matching pair. I acknowledge that without this visual relief a two storey flank of this scale would appear bland and harmful to the street scene to which it would be fully exposed. However, the solution chosen in the scheme’s design would again be incongruous in relation to its context. 10. The rear elevation is well designed and in my view acceptable. 11. Overall, whilst the grounds of appeal correctly challenge a couple of technical errors in the officer’s report and the proposal as a whole includes some commendable aspects, I conclude that the scale and some aspects of the design of the extensions would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, Nos. 74 & 76 as a semi-detached pair, and the street scene of Monmouth Road. 12. This would be in conflict with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies 2012; Policies BE13, BE15 & BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Saved UDP Policies 2012; the adopted HDAS: Residential Extensions SPD 2008, and Section 7: ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 13. For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR