Erection of new first floor to existing bungalow including the creation of a new gable ended roof with loft accommodation and rooflights, single storey ground floor side extension and bi-folding doors at the rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 March 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: Tuesday, 27 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/17/3191513 5 Oak Avenue, Ickenham, UB10 8LP  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 Mrs Priya Szurgot against the decision of London Borough of Hillingdon Council.  The application Ref 15810/APP/2017/3044, dated 17 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 October 2017.  The development proposed is erection of new first floor to existing bungalow including the creation of a new gable ended roof with loft accommodation and rooflights, single storey ground floor side extension and bi-folding doors at the rear. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of new first floor to existing bungalow including the creation of a new gable ended roof with loft accommodation and rooflights, single storey ground floor side extension and bi-folding doors at the rear at 5 Oak Avenue, Ickenham, UB10 8LP in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 15810/APP/2017/3044, dated 17 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing numbers all prefixed 1060_, then 1 Rev A, 2 Rev A, 5 Rev A, 6, 7 Rev A, 15 Rev A, 16 Rev A & 17 Rev B. Main Issue 2. I consider that this is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the streetscene. Reasons 3. The Council has not objected to bi-folding doors at the rear or the rooflights, so I shall focus my attention on the consequences of erecting of a new first floor with a gable-ended roof. This would transform an existing bungalow with a pyramid roof into a substantial 2 storey house with additional accommodation in the roof space. The Council objects to this on the grounds that it would Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/17/3191513 2 close a visually open gap between the appeal site and no.3 next door; and that it would result in an over-sized gable end roof design. 4. I regard it as an important material consideration that the Council has previously given planning permission for the creation of a first floor at the appeal site, which included raising and enlarging the roof and alterations to the elevations (ref 15810/APP/2015/2825, dated 29 September 2015, but not implemented). This differed from the appeal proposal primarily in having a pyramid form of roof, like the existing bungalow and no.3 next door. I consider that this permission established that an additional floor and conversion to a house is acceptable in principle to the Council. 5. The gap at first floor level between the appeal proposal and no.3 would be identical to that in the approved scheme (although the gable end may make it appear less). I consider that bringing an existing single storey side extension forward would have little additional impact on the overall impression. The gap at first floor level would be more than the equivalent space between no.s 1 & 3. This is formed by the single storey side of no.1, the flank wall of no.3 being built on the common boundary. Hence I consider that the Council’s case with regards to the gap lacks weight. 6. Oak Avenue generally comprises a mix of bungalows and houses, usually quite well spaced, giving an open feel to the much of the road. However, the appeal site is part of a small group of dwellings at the southern end of the road, and on both sides, near the junction with the main road. Except for no.5 at the moment, these are all of 2 storey height. No.s 1 & 3 are modest detached houses, the former now with a gable ended roof. High Trees opposite is a block of ten flats, built in the form of a linked pair of houses, both with gable ends. No.s 4 & 4a, directly opposite the appeal site, is a pair of semi-detached houses, originally with a hip-ended roof. No.4 was given planning permission on appeal to convert to a gable end (Ref APP/R5510/D/14/2226011, dated 10 November 2014). At the time of my visit, both halves of the pair had gable- ended roofs. The appeal proposal would result in a building of similar height, form and scale to this pair. It would be well separated from the bungalow at no.7 by the wide side garden of the latter. Hence I find that the appeal proposal would appear to be neither out of place nor cramped in relation to adjoining development. 7. The proposal would retain some of the design characteristics and materials of the existing bungalow. It is necessary, in the interests of a satisfactory appearance, to impose a planning condition to require the use of matching materials. I also need to impose a condition requiring compliance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty. 8. Subject to these conditions, I conclude that the proposal would not detract materially from the character and appearance of the site and the streetscene. It would comply with Policy BE1 in the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 Strategic Policies (2012), and Policies BE13, BE15 & BE19 in the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan [UDP] (1998). Among other things, these policies require high standards of design that are appropriate to context, and which harmonise with the streetscene, the design characteristics of the original building and the character of the area. 9. UDP Policy BE22 requires buildings of more than two storeys in The Drive (among other places) to be a minimum of 1 metre from the side boundary, for Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/17/3191513 3 the full height of the building. In approving the earlier scheme at the site with the existing ground floor side extension, the Council must have accepted that this requirement can be set aside when other material considerations so indicate. I consider that this proposal is also such a case. The Council has cited a similar provision in its Hillingdon Design and Accessibility (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Extensions (2008), to support its case. The reason for protecting gaps is said to be “preventing houses combining visually to form a terraced appearance”. As this would not be the case at the appeal site, I consider that this HDAS guidance does not weigh against the proposal. 10. I therefore conclude overall that there is no reason to withhold planning permission, and I allow the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR