Part two storey part single storey side/rear extension and alterations to roof (retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 April 2018 by Penelope Metcalfe BA(Hons) MSc DipUP DipDBE MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3194993 157 Central Avenue, Hayes, UB3 2BT  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 Mian Hussain against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 21997/APP/2017/3213, dated 4 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 November 2017.  The development proposed is part two storey part single storey side/rear extension and alterations to roof (retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part two storey part single storey side/rear extension and alterations to roof at 157 Central Avenue, Hayes, UB3 2BT in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21997/APP/2017/3213, dated 4 September 2017. Procedural matter 2. The development has been carried out. There are some discrepancies between the development as built and as indicated on the plans submitted with the planning application. In determining this appeal I have based my decision on the development as built, having regard to the extent to which it differs from that shown on the submitted plans. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. 157 Central Avenue is an end-of-terrace two storey house located in an Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). This area is characterised by terraces of four or more two storey houses with projecting front gables either at each end, for example in the terraces of four, or spaced along the terrace in the case of the longer terraces. No. 157 is the end house of a terrace of four with projecting gables at either end. It is located at the junction between Central Avenue and Hemmen Lane. The area has an open, spacious character with wide footways and grass verges creating good separation between houses on opposite sides of the roads. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3194993 2 5. Relevant planning policies in this case include BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 – Strategic Policies 2012 (the local plan) which, among other things, requires new development to achieve a high quality of design and be appropriate to the identity and context of the local area. Also relevant are policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan 1998, saved in 2007 (the UDP). These require development, including extensions, to harmonise with the existing street scene and the original building and, in residential areas, to complement or improve the amenity and character of the area. 6. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions 2008 (the SPD) provides more detailed guidance. It advises that two storey side extensions to end-of-terrace houses should be integrated with the existing house and that there is no specific requirement for a set-back from the front of the house. Single storey side extensions can be in line with the front of the original house except in some situations where a set-back would preserve the character of the area, particularly conservation areas. 7. Permission was granted in 2015 for a two storey side extension set back from the front gable wall and a front porch, replacing an existing small conservatory and single storey lean-to at the side. The front of the latter appears to have been set back a small amount from the front gable wall. Retrospective permission for a rear extension was also granted. The two storey element as built is set well back from the front gable wall and well away from the side boundary with Hemmen Lane, which itself has wide grass verges either side of the road. In my view this is acceptable in that it retains the open character of the street scene and is consistent with Council policies. 8. The development as built includes a single storey flat roofed element in front of the new two storey element with a small set-back from the front wall of the original house similar to that of the original lean-to. A brick wall with a pedestrian access gate set into it links the front wall of the extension to the side boundary. In my opinion, the modest scale and height of this element is such that it blends in with the original house and terrace and the rest of the development as built, particularly as it is constructed of a similar brick and is in a similar location to that of the original lean-to. It has little impact on the appearance of the street scene as the strong form of the gable remains fully expressed and visible, and clearly separate from the new two storey extension which is noticeably more prominent than the single storey extension. 9. Although this is an ASLC I do not consider that the size, form and siting of the single storey extension have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area since the overall architectural composition of the terrace remains clearly apparent. 10. The porch as built is larger and grander in design than that shown on the drawings submitted and its proximity to the bay window gives it a rather cramped appearance. However, I saw during my site visit that although many of the houses along the street retain their simple entrances, there are several larger porches apparent in the immediate surroundings, including a wraparound single storey front and side extension at the other end of the terrace. I consider that the differences between the submitted plans and the porch as built would not be sufficient reason, on their own, to dismiss the appeal. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3194993 3 11. I conclude that the development as built does not harm the character and appearance of the building itself or the surrounding area and that it is not contrary to local plan policy BE1, saved UDP policies BE13, 15 and 19 and the SPD. 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. Conditions 13. The development has been constructed and it is not necessary to impose any conditions. PAG Metcalfe INSPECTOR