Single storey rear extension to the house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 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/F5540/D/17/3190925 29 Clifden Road, Brentford TW8 0PB  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 Ms Caroline Small against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application, Ref. 00279/29/P2, dated 29 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 October 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension to the house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension to the house at 29 Clifden Road, Brentford in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 00279/29/P2, dated 29 August 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this Decision; 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: OS based Location Plan; Drawing Nos. 01; 02; 03; 04; 05; 06A; 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issues 2. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and whether the character or appearance of the St Paul’s Brentford Conservation Area would thereby be preserved or enhanced, and (ii) the effect on the living conditions as regards light and outlook for the occupiers of No. 27 Clifden Road. Reasons 3. I saw on my visit that the appeal dwelling is an end of terrace house with a traditional Greater London two storey gabled outrigger paired with No. 31 to the east, a house of the same original design. On its western flank and separated by several metres is No. 27, one half of a larger semi-detached pair and with an outrigger of greater depth. The architectural merit of the houses in Clifden Road and the historic development pattern of tightly knit dwellings with Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/17/3190925 2 outriggers is recognised by the road forming part of the St Paul’s Brentford Conservation Area. 4. On the first issue, the architectural integrity of many of the houses and historic interest of the development pattern has to some extent been diminished by a number of single storey rear extensions, both unauthorised and with permission. These have variously infilled the L shapes formed by the outriggers with their nearest boundary and extended the depths of the original dwelling, and examples can be seen at No. 31 with both types of addition and at the appeal property with its infill side extension the same length as its outrigger. 5. Taking Nos. 29 and 31 as a pair, which because they were originally of the same design (and in frontage terms still are) I consider it sensible to do, there are four single storey options for an extension. These are an infill of the L shape in each case and an extension at the rear, also for each building. Of these options three of the four have been implemented, as described in the preceding paragraph. 6. In these circumstances, whilst I recognise the Council’s entirely understandable objective of preventing a further dilution of the original character and appearance of the dwellings and their context, I also consider that there is little to be achieved by rejecting the proposed extension, including at its current depth. I appreciate there is some, albeit fairly limited, breach of the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines SPD (‘the REG SPD’ updated in December 2017 after this appeal was made). However, three quarters of the wraparound to the paired gabled outrigger has already been constructed and in views from the rear gardens the featureless flank elevation of No. 31’s rear extension set against the infilled rear elevation of No. 29 is somewhat incongruous and aesthetically unappealing. 7. The proposed extension would line in with the existing addition to No. 31 and would be sufficiently proportionate and of sympathetic design to the dwelling and its context to increase the visual harmony of the rear elevation. Accordingly on this issue, and having regard to the particular circumstances I have outlined, I consider that the scheme would preserve the character and appearance of both the pair of Nos. 29 & 31 and the conservation area. 8. Turing to the second issue, and noting that enclosure and outlook are essentially the same point, there is a gap of just over 4m between the flank of the outrigger of No. 27 to the boundary with No. 29. This narrows to just over 2m forward of the No. 27’s L shape and well away from the proposed extension. However, even at 2m this separation between Nos. 27 and 29 is important because it substantially reduces any perception of enclosure in the rear courtyard of No. 27. 9. The addition of the 3.2m deep extension would inevitably increase that perception, but this is at the point where the courtyard is over 4m wide and with a dual aspect towards Clifden Road and the rear garden and I do not consider that there would be a significant effect. 10. In terms of the effect on outlook from inside the rooms of No. 27, this would be mainly confined to the kitchen window in the flank wall of the outrigger. However, with the gap of over 4m from the window to the proposed wall I consider it likely that oblique views over the garden fence beyond the extension Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/17/3190925 3 would remain. As regards light, the courtyard’s main aspect is northwards and with the consequential limited reliance on this as a source of natural light and no possibility of any increase in shadowing I do not share the Council’s reservations on this matter. Furthermore, although not in itself determinative, I note that the occupiers of No. 27 have made no objection to the appeal scheme. 11. Overall and taking both issues together, I conclude that there would be no harmful conflict with Policies CC1, CC2, CC4 & SC7 of Volume One of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030; the objectives of the REG SPD and Sections 7: ‘Requiring Good Design’ and 12: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 12. I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring matching external materials will ensure a harmonious form of development. A condition ensuring that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt as to the exact form of the proposal. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR