Change of use of existing garage to habitable use, with extension at front & rear to match existing building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 April 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/18/3193485 13 Boundaries Road, Feltham, TW13 5DR  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 Daljit Randhawa against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 00136/13/P8, dated 27 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 December 2017.  The development proposed is described as the change of use of existing garage to habitable use, with extension at front & rear to match existing building. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. It is noted that the Council’s decision was taken on the same day that they adopted the Residential Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) A Guide for Householders, which replaced the Residential Extension Guidelines October 2003. It is not clear from the officer’s report which set of guidelines are being discussed. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have considered this appeal with regard had to the recently adopted SPD. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of 13 Boundaries Road and the wider area. Reasons 4. No 13 is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling occupying a corner plot on the junction of Boundaries Road with Salisbury Road. The area is principally residential in character with predominantly similar property types. The dwelling has bay windows to the front elevation, a front porch extension and a side detached, double-length garage with a pitched roof to the front that projects sideways and links to the side wall of the house. There is a gated entrance between the garage and the house which gives access to a walkway leading to the rear garden. The outside brick wall of the garage forms part of Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3193485 2 the side return boundary to Salisbury Road. The remainder of the walled boundary enclosure to the rear garden continues along Salisbury Road at a lower height. 5. The proposal would replace the garage with a flat roof, single-storey extension that would run along the full depth of the appeal property and extend further to the rear to align with an existing single-storey extension built to the rear of the dwelling. 6. The Council’s SPD advises that for corner plots extra care needs to be taken for proposed side extensions due to their exposed location and that in such cases a set in from the side boundary may be required to reduce the impact of the addition. It also advises that the width of the extension should be significantly less than that of the main house, and the side wall should be parallel to the original house. 7. In this case the width of the extension would be appropriately in proportion with the original dwelling. Nevertheless, it would extend across the width of the plot and close to the back edge of the pavement. In addition, the dimensions on the plans show that it would be marginally wider to the rear, with the outside wall following the line of the side boundary rather than running parallel to the side wall of the house. In this regard the proposal would be contrary to the guidelines within the SPD. However, although the extension would be longer than the garage it would replace, the existing arrangement already imposes a high and solid enclosure to the back edge of the pavement along Salisbury Road at this point. The additional height and length of the appeal proposal would not significantly alter the existing arrangement to a degree that would be intrusive or out of keeping in the area. The absence of any set in from the side boundary would not harmfully impact upon the street in this instance. 8. Although the outside wall of the extension would not run parallel to the side wall of the house, the angle of difference would be marginal and not overtly perceived. Furthermore, the extension would follow the existing alignment of the garage, which would appear comfortable within the street scene. 9. The SPD states that any wrap around proposal that connects a side extension to a rear extension on a corner plot will be refused. The appellant points out that the extension is linear and does not ‘wrap around’. Whilst that is the case, the new extension would tie-in with the existing rear extension so that the overall effect would be a combination of additions that would together wrap around the original dwelling. This is what the SPD advises against. In addition, the pitched roof form of the existing extension would appear at odds with the flat roof form of the new addition such that there would be an inharmonious marriage between the two. This would be clearly seen in part above the rear boundary wall in views from the public domain along Salisbury Road when looking east towards Boundaries Road. 10. Additionally, the side extension would fail to display any set back from the main front wall of the house, as is normally required by the SPD. Instead the extension would be flush with the front elevation with an eaves height that would be stepped noticeably higher than the prominent lintel over the front porch. The sideways projection of building form would not be seamless but Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3193485 3 would display an awkward relationship that would be evident within the street scene. Although there are examples given within the SPD where it says that a set back may not always be necessary, the circumstances in this case do not indicate to me that the normal guidance on this matter should be set aside. 11. I have taken note of an extant planning permission for a two-storey side extension to the appeal property that was granted in August 2017 (Ref 00136/ 13/P7). However, I have not been presented with any details to show that are elements between the permitted works and the appeal proposal that are comparable. Neither have I been presented with any details to the planning history for a variety of side extensions to other properties that are shown in an array of photographs provided by the appellant. In any event, I have considered the appeal based on the individual planning merits of the case before me and against the current development plan and guidance. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, I find that the proposal, by reason of its relationship with the existing building in terms of its size and position, would be harmful to the character and appearance of No 13. As such, it would also detract from the character and appearance of the street scene. It would therefore conflict with Policies CC1, CC2 or SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan (LP), adopted in 2015, insofar as they deal with quality of design and the impact of development, including residential extensions, upon an area’s context and character. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR