Single storey rear infill extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 February 2018 by J Wilde C Eng MICE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/17/3190773 7 Links Road, Acton, London W3 0ER  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 Chris Reid against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing.  The application Ref 173889HH, dated 1 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 September 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear infill extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear infill extension at 7 Links Road, Acton, London W3 0ER in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 173889HH, dated 1 August 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 plan: 1741/01. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether or not the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hanger Hill Garden Estate Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a mid-terraced two storey dwelling located within the Hanger Hill Garden Estate Conservation Area (CA). The property has an existing single storey rear extension, and the proposed development would increase this extension to the full width of the property. 4. I have been supplied with a copy of the Hanger Hill Garden Estate Conservation Area Management Plan (MP). Section 5.5 of the MP is sub-titled Design Guidelines and on page 16 it explains that due to the grain of the estate and the modest size of the properties in all cases no full width extensions will be permitted except in the case of semi-detached properties. Section 5.7 of the document indicates that the Conservation Appraisal for the Conservation Area has shown an ongoing deterioration of the special character of the area due to Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/17/3190773 2 amongst other things, rear extensions that disrupt the architectural integrity of the properties. 5. However, the rear elevations of the properties in Links Road and Monks Drive are not a particularly significant component of the CA, with the frontages of the properties showing the greatest architectural integrity and cohesiveness. Furthermore, the proposed extension would have a very modest footprint, would extend rearwards less than the existing extension, would be lower and would have a pitched roof to match the existing. Due to its height and the surrounding boundary treatment there would be no publicly available views. The only available views would be from the first floor windows of adjacent properties, and there are already a considerable number of rear extensions, many far less sympathetic to the integrity of the properties than that proposed, that can be seen in such views. 6. I acknowledge that some of these are attached to end of terrace properties and that at least one was built prior to the designation of the CA, but this does not alter my view that the proposed extension would not disrupt the overall architectural integrity of the CA and would therefore preserve its character and appearance. 7. There would therefore be no conflict with policies 7.4 or 7C of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document. The former of these seeks to ensure that development in Ealing’s existing built environment should complement, amongst other things, the building pattern. The latter requires that development within a conservation area should retain and enhance characteristic features and detailing and avoid the introduction of design and materials that undermine the significance of the conservation area. 8. Nor would there be conflict with policy 7.4 of the London Plan, which requires that development should have regard to the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings, or with policy 7.8 of the same document which requires, amongst other things, that development should conserve the significance of heritage assets as well as being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. Conditions 9. I have imposed the standard time condition as well as, for certainty, a condition detailing the submitted plans. Conclusion 10. In light of the above reasoning and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. John Wilde INSPECTOR