Two storey side extension, loft conversion including rear dormer, single storey rear extension and Velux windows to front and side elevations

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/18/3195343 56 Dartmouth Road, Ruislip, HA4 0DB  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 Jodi Hanmore against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 72398/APP/2017/3186, dated 1 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 November 2017.  The development proposed is two storey side extension, loft conversion including rear dormer, single storey rear extension and Velux windows to front and side elevations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side extension, loft conversion including rear dormer, single storey rear extension and Velux windows to front and side elevations at 56 Dartmouth Road, Ruislip, HA4 0DB, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 72398/APP/2017/3186, dated 1 September 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1:1250 location plan, 3110/1, 3110/2C, 3110/3B, 3110/4D, 3110/5B and 3110/6. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. 56 Dartmouth Road is an end-of-terrace two storey house located in an established residential area, characterised by regular terraces of varying lengths and architectural detailing. It is at the end of a straight section of Dartmouth Road, at a right-angled bend in the road, with the neighbouring terrace of four properties set at an angle on the corner. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3195343 2 4. 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. Saved UDP policy BE22 relates to two storey residential extensions. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions 2008 (the SPD) provides more detailed guidance. 5. I consider that the proposed two storey side/rear extension would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Notwithstanding its height and proximity to the side boundary, it would not result in an unacceptable closing of the gap between it and the neighbouring property at No. 58. The latter already has a two storey side extension, the front corner of which is approximately one metre from its side boundary. 6. UDP policy BE22 and the SPD both advocate that two storey extensions should be a distance of one metre from the side boundary in order to protect the gaps between properties and avoid a terracing effect. However, because of the limited space available at the side of No. 56, there would be insufficient room to provide adequate internal width in the new rooms if the extension were to be set back from the boundary by one metre. 7. Due to their location on the bend in the road, Nos. 56 and 58 are set at an angle to each other and this, together with the vehicular access lane between them would reduce the impact of the proposal on the open character of the gap between them as viewed from the east along Dartmouth Road. In views from the north along the road, the existing gap between them is not visible until quite close to No.56. The street as a whole is characterised by groups of terraced houses and the proposal would not be out of keeping with this character. 8. No 56 is an end of terrace house for which the Council’s policies and SPD advocate that their height should be equal to that of the main house and set out no requirement for two storey extensions to be set back from the front building line. In this respect, the proposal is acceptable insofar as it would be integrated with the existing house in terms of its height, width and relationship to the existing front elevation. 9. The alterations to the roof by extending the hipped form to create additional accommodation in the loft and over the side extension would follow the design of the existing roof. In this respect it would be in keeping with the character of the existing building, its immediate neighbours in the terrace and the wider street scene. 10. The proposed dormer window would be large and occupy much of the extended width of the roof up to the start of the slope of the new hipped section. It would also have full height glazing across part of its width. However, it would be set down from the ridge as extended, up from the eaves and in from the side wall with No. 54 to the north. On the basis of the information before me, it appears that there would only be a minimal inset from the start of the new hip part of the roof. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3195343 3 11. While the size of the dormer would be wider than is normally acceptable and the large amount of glazing would be uncharacteristic, it would not be visible from the street. It would be obscured from view from the side by the oblique angle and the height of the side extension and the latter’s projection to the rear. 12. I saw during my site visit that there is a similar, larger dormer at the rear of No. 52 in the same terrace and there are others further along the street. This does not necessarily justify allowing the appeal proposal, but I consider that the proposed dormer would be better integrated into the extended building and acceptable in this context. 13. The proposed rooflights would occupy a significant part of the extended roof at the front. However, I saw during my visit that there are numerous properties along the street with a wide range of rooflights at the front. The proposed rooflights would be regular in distribution and distance from the ridge, unlike some others in the area, and I consider that in this context, they would be acceptable. 14. The internal accommodation in the existing house is very modest in size. The appellant has a growing family for whom the living conditions are cramped and inconvenient and the proposal would allow an improvement to and modernisation of the accommodation. In my view, the proposed extension is in harmony with the scale, form and architectural composition of the original building and the terrace of which it is a part. The proposed dormer, while not strictly in accordance with the Council’s guidance in terms of its visual integration with the form of the rear of the property, would not adversely affect the street scene or the wider area. 15. I conclude that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the house, the terrace and the wider street scene and that it is consistent with local plan policy BE1, saved policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and the SPD. 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. Conditions 17. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council, having regard to the tests set out in the Framework. A condition detailing the plans is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and for the avoidance of doubt. A condition relating to the materials is necessary in order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. PAG Metcalfe INSPECTOR