Single storey side/rear/front extension to include 2 rear rooflights and the rebuilding of the detached garage and conversion to habitable use (retrospective application)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16TH May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3195112 18 Church Road, Northwood, Middlesex HA6 1AS  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 Niranjana Patel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 6532/APP/2017/1814 was refused by notice dated 20 December 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey side/rear/front extension to include 2 rear rooflights and the rebuilding of the detached garage and conversion to habitable use (retrospective application). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) the character and appearance of the house and the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character; and ii) living conditions at the neighbouring property 20 Church Road, in terms of impacts on privacy. Clarification 3. A similar development was allowed on appeal in 20141. During the subsequent works, which are largely complete, a garage at the rear was demolished and rebuilt instead of being converted, with the height being increased in the process. A raised rear patio has also been created. This proposal is for the extensions and patio as built. Reasons Character and appearance 4. No 18 is a handsome, bay fronted semi-detached house sitting within the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character (ASLC), designated for its architectural, townscape and environmental quality. In the absence of any 1 APP/R5510/D/14/2221101 – for a ‘single storey side/rear extension to include 2 x rear rooflights and conversion of detached garage to habitable use’. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3195112 2 further assessment of the area’s special character, I find this to be a pleasant, mainly residential area with an attractive and largely harmonious mix of houses which for the most part appear to range from the early to mid-20th Century. No 18 fits well within this setting, but is not otherwise notable. 5. The original garage was a low structure, set well to the rear of and slightly down from the house, with the slope of the back garden. A much higher flat roofed structure has been built in its place and linked to the house by the approved flat roofed side/rear/front extension. This has created an overly tall, bulky and unsympathetically designed box-like element extending far beyond the back of the house. Although there is a similar extension to the rear of No 16 next door, that extension is lower, shorter in length and more discreet. 6. The replacement structure can be seen from neighbouring properties and also in glimpsed views from a nearby street. It appears to be unnecessarily tall, as it extends well above the adjoining flat roof section. Its height is accentuated by the dropping ground levels to the rear. The appellant suggests that the height could be reduced by the removal of a parapet wall, but the parapet only extends upwards a few brick courses so its removal would not reduce the structure’s height by much. The appellant also suggests that rendering or painting the brick walls to match the main house could help the extension blend in better, but I find that this would not significantly improve the situation. 7. I appreciate that the garage was rebuilt rather than converted in order to provide step free access to this part of the house for the elderly occupants. I am sympathetic to this reasonable requirement, but nevertheless find that this part of the proposal is unduly harmful as built. 8. The Council also raises objection to the front element of the extension, which marries up with the previously existing porch, extending slightly forward of the bay window in conflict with the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Residential Extensions, that porches must not extend past the line of any bay window. This does, however, appear to be a similar situation to that assessed in the previous appeal. I find that this part of the development blends in well, more or less mirroring the adjacent front extension at No 16, and does not look out of place. 9. Although I find no objection to the front/side extension, I conclude that the rebuilt section to the rear unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the house and the ASLC. The proposal taken as a whole therefore conflicts with the aims of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies, Policies BE5, BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Saved Policies and the SPD, to ensure that extensions improve and maintain the quality of the built environment, harmonising with the building and the street scene, especially within the ASLCs. Living conditions 10. The Council’s concern in this respect is about overlooking of No 20 from the raised patio area at the back of the house. A fence that has been erected on the boundary is, however, high enough to cut off most views of No 20’s conservatory and garden but not so high as to be overbearing on the outlook Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3195112 3 from that property, despite a difference in levels. No other significant overlooking arises. 11. I conclude that the proposal does not significantly affect living conditions at 20 Church Road. It therefore accords in this respect with the aims of UDP Saved Policies BE20 and BE21 and the SPD, to ensure that extensions do not result in a significant loss of residential amenity. Conclusion 12. I have considered all other matters raised. Although I have found in favour of the appellant on the second main issue, my concerns in regard to the first main issue are sufficiently compelling for me to conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR