First floor side/rear extension and loft conversion to form habitable space

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/17/3191297 2 Southdown Avenue, Hanwell, London W7 2AQ  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 Robert Guy Mason against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing.  The application Ref 173839HH, dated 28 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 September 2017.  The development proposed is a first floor side/rear extension and loft conversion to form habitable space. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side/rear extension and loft conversion at 2 Southdown Avenue, Hanwell, London W7 2AQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 173839HH, dated 28 July 2017, subject to the conditions contained in the attached schedule. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:- a) The character and appearance of the area and, b) The living conditions of the occupiers of No 4 Wellmeadow Road with particular respect to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house with a pitched roof and front gable featuring ground and first floor bay windows. The proposed work would consist of an infill section at first floor level and a large rear dormer and three Velux windows to the front. To facilitate the dormer and Velux windows a section of the roof that is currently at a slightly lower level than the main section would be raised to the same height as the main section and the hipped roof to the rear section of the house would be replaced with a gable. 4. The appeal property is unusual, in terms of the street scene, in having the existing lowered section of roof. It follows that the raising of this section would not result in the appeal property being out of keeping with other properties in the area. Nor do I consider that the Velux windows would be so out of place as to constitute a reason to dismiss the appeal. Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/17/3191297 2 5. When seen from the rear the proposed dormer would be relatively dominating. However, it would be very similar to the dormer on the attached house as well as a number in the area, including Nos 6, 8 and 12 Southdown Avenue, Nos 4 and 5 Boston Gardens and Nos 2 and 4 Wellmeadow Road. The properties with dormers in Wellmeadow Road, Boston Gardens and Nos 4, 6 and 8 Southdown Avenue are all visible from the appeal site. Whilst I have not been supplied with details of their planning history, they nevertheless now help to inform the visual context of the appeal site and the immediate area. The proposed dormer would not therefore be at odds with the surrounding built form, and would be viewed mainly from locations where these existing dormers are already a feature. 6. There would not therefore be any conflict with policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (DMDPD). The former of these requires that development should complement, amongst other things, the building pattern, scale, materials and detailing. The latter policy requires a positive visual impact and appropriates levels of development on a site. Nor would there be conflict with policies 7.4 or 7.6 of the London Plan (2016) (LP). Policy 7.4 requires that development should have regard to, amongst other things, the form of an area. Policy 7.6 states that, amongst other things, buildings should comprise details and materials that complement the local architectural character. Living conditions 7. The existing south gable of the appeal property is about 1m from the end of the garden of 4 Wellmeadow Road, and the proposed development would result in an increase in the area of this gable. However, the distance from the rear elevation of 4 Wellmeadow Road to the gable would be over 16m and the resulting relationship would be no different from that already in existence between the gable and the rear of 2 Wellmeadow Road. Therefore, whilst the resulting gable would appear slightly more dominating than it is at present, I do not consider that this would be to such a degree as to justify dismissing the appeal. 8. No conflict would therefore exist with policy 7.6 of the LP, which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that buildings do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, or with policy 7B of the DMDPD, which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that new development achieves a high standard of amenity for adjacent users. Conditions 9. As the development allowed is an extension I have imposed a condition as suggested by the Council to ensure that the materials used in the extension match those in the existing building. For certainty I have also imposed 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 Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/17/3191297 3 SCHEDULE OF 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: Site Location plan, Existing ground and first floor SO-360-11, Existing south east and north west side sections SO-360-12, Existing rear and front elevations SO-360-13, Proposed first floor plan SO-360-14A, Proposed second floor plan SO- 360-15A, Proposed rear elevation SO-360-16A, Proposed north west facing side section SO-360-17A, Proposed south east side elevation SO- 360-18A, Proposed front elevation SO-360-19. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.