Two storey side and single storey side/rear extension involving demolition of existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 April 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3192953 29 Lawrence Drive, Ickenham, Uxbridge, UB10 8RW  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 Floor Plans Express against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 73033/APP/2017/2564, dated 14 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 October 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey side and single storey side/rear extension involving demolition of existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side and single storey side/rear extension involving demolition of existing garage at 29 Lawrence Drive, Ickenham, Uxbridge, UB10 8RW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 73033/APP/2017/2564, dated 14 July 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 plan: STO/2016/001/C. Preliminary Matter 2. I use the Council’s description of development as it more accurately embodies the full nature of the planned works. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached home with a hipped roof which has a flat roofed garage with small parapet to the side in line with the main elevation. The locality is of established residential character with mainly semi-detached homes of broadly similar appearance which come together to Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3192953 2 form a pleasant streetscene. The proposal is as described above and would primarily provide for replacement garage space, greater living accommodation, and a new bedroom with increased and re-arranged bathroom facilities. 5. The Council is concerned that the proposal by reason of size, design and positioning would not be subordinate to the original house and would harm semi-detached symmetry and the locality’s aesthetic qualities. 6. The single storey rearward element of the proposed works would go across the property and have a projection of some 4 metres into the relatively generous rear garden area. I recognise that this would be a little beyond the 3.6 m guidance encompassed in the SPD I cite in Paragraph 8 below. However this would nevertheless not be an unreasonable, disproportionate or unusual proposition in my opinion and the upper level and main roof would remain predominant visually. 7. In terms of the hipped roof two storey side element the Council reasonably explains how there would be no breach of SPD guidance in terms of height, roof form, relative width, boundary location, or upper floor set-back. The concern rests with the lack of a set back at the ground floor level i.e. the garage part, which the Council considers would prevent suitable subordination and harm symmetry. For my part I believe the side element would appear markedly subservient to the original property not least because of massing and I see no need in this instance for the ground floor to set-back. The original property has a bay window across about half of the ground floor and the new garage face would be appreciably behind that. The existing garage positioning is merely being replicated. The homes are not directly symmetrical at present because of this garage but in any event the predominant element contributing to them being almost a matching pair is the roof form, the upper level main front wall and the bay windows all of which would remain as the predominant features. Furthermore the fact that the appeal property is the ‘end of a row’ and not centrally located in a run of matching semi-detached homes gives scope for some modest visual differentiation without harm to immediate or wider character and appearance qualities 8. I therefore conclude that the scale and design of the scheme would harmonise appropriately with the original dwelling and its context and would sit subtly in the streetscene. It would not run contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012). These policies share common themes of seeking to protect or enhance the character and appearance of buildings and their neighbourhood, to ensure harmonious development and the safeguarding of local distinctiveness. The proposals would also not run contrary to the corresponding objectives of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions (SPD) which in any event cannot be expected to cover every eventuality. Conditions 9. The scheme should have the standard commencement condition. The Council suggests the requirement for materials to match the existing building. I agree this condition would be appropriate in the interests of visual amenity. I also agree that there should be a condition that works are to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved, plan; to provide certainty. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3192953 3 Overall conclusion 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property or the locality. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. D Cramond INSPECTOR