Installation of 2 additional windows - one in the front and the other in the rear elevation at the second floor of the house as non-compliance with condition 4 attached to the planning permission ref 01143/76A/P1 granted on 18 October 2013

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: 21 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/18/3195231 76A Upper Sutton Lane, Hounslow TW5 0PT  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 Gurpal Singh Gill against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 01143/76A/P4 was refused by notice dated 19 January 2018.  The development proposed is the installation of 2 additional windows - one in the front and the other in the rear elevation at the second floor of the house as non-compliance with condition 4 attached to the planning permission ref 01143/76A/P1 granted on 18 October 2013. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Clarifications 2. The above description of development, taken from the application form, refers to non-compliance with a planning condition. The appeal application was, however, submitted as a normal householder planning application rather than as an application for the variation or removal of a condition. 3. The application/appeal proposal is for 2 new windows, as described on the application form and as dealt with by the Council. The submitted plans also show 2 added rooflights, but I have not considered these to be part of this proposal. Main issues 4. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the building and the local area; and (ii) living conditions at neighbouring properties, in terms of the impact on privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 5. 76A Sutton Lane is located in a backland position within a mixed residential and commercial area. Between No 76A and Upper Sutton Lane is a former Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3195231 2 public house now converted into a supermarket with 2 floors of flats over. The site is otherwise surrounded by residential properties and a garage block. 6. The house has been extended following planning permission for the erection of a 2 storey side extension1. A retrospective application for variations to the approved scheme was refused by the Council and dismissed on appeal2. Although local objectors point to remaining variations between the approved scheme and the as-built scheme, the Council confirms that an Enforcement Notice has been complied with. The resulting building has a large section of flat roof above much of the second floor and is both taller and bulkier than most of the smaller scale houses in the area. 7. As well as dealing with the unauthorised bulk and height of the extended building, the previous appeal also dealt with 2 second floor windows. The building as reduced now retains a second floor room with no windows. As above, the proposal is to insert 2 new windows to serve this room, which is labelled on the plans as a bedroom. 8. Although the building has been reduced to bring it more or less into line with the original approval, it remains an awkwardly designed structure which is hemmed in within its tight, backland site. The previous Inspector found that the high level windows were partly responsible for the building’s poor appearance, adding to the impression of height and bulk. Nevertheless, the reduced building has now been accepted by the Council and the windows on their own are minor features which would have an insignificant effect on the overall design and perception of the structure. Although the building is not a thing of beauty, the windows would not unduly alter or degrade its appearance. 9. I conclude that the proposed windows would not harm the character or appearance of the building or the local area. I therefore find no conflict in this respect with the aims of Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (LP), to support high quality architecture to create attractive, distinctive and liveable places and to support the extension and alteration of residential properties where these would not result in harm to the built environment. Living conditions 10. One of the proposed windows would face the new flats, at an angle but at a short enough distance so that significant mutual overlooking and loss of privacy would be caused. The other proposed window, although set well away from and angled away from neighbouring houses, would provide elevated, close range and extensive views over neighbours’ gardens, again causing a significant loss of privacy. 11. I have considered whether this matter could be addressed by a condition requiring both windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut up to 1.7m above floor level. This would not be reasonable, however, as this proposed bedroom would be a habitable room without any satisfactory outlook, providing poor living conditions for future residents. 1 Ref 01143/76A/P1 2 Refs 01143/76A/P2 and APP/F5540/A/14/2220613 Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3195231 3 12. I conclude that, in the absence of a reasonable condition to prevent undue overlooking of neighbouring gardens, the proposal would unacceptably affect living conditions at neighbouring properties due to loss of privacy. It therefore conflicts in this respect with LP Policies CC2 and SC7, which expect development proposals to have a positive impact on the amenity of current and future residents and which only support the extension or alteration of residential properties where these would not result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents. It furthermore conflicts with the guidance of the Council’s 2017 Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions, which advises that neighbours are entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy in their homes and outside in their gardens. Other matters 13. I note the appellant’s argument that windows could be inserted into the original sections of these walls as permitted development. The Council has, however, refused an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness on this matter3, due to a restrictive planning condition. I understand that this refusal was not appealed. On the limited information before me I find that the existence of permitted development rights for new windows here has not been adequately demonstrated. I therefore give very little weight to this as a potential fall-back position. Conclusion 14. Although I find no objection in respect of the first main issue, my concerns in relation to the second main issue are sufficiently compelling for me to conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR 3 01143/76A/LAW1