Erection of a porch and a garage conversion and first floor external wall insulation

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/18/3195957 20 Elmbridge Drive, Ruislip HA4 7UT  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 Rupa Pattni against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 31438/APP/2017/4067 was refused by notice dated 4 January 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a porch and a garage conversion and first floor external wall insulation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the house and the local area. Reasons 3. 20 Elmbridge Drive is a semi-detached house within a residential area typified by a mix of similar houses and bungalows, of relatively simple but well detailed and well proportioned design. No 20 is typical of the area but does have an awkwardly designed 2 storey flat roofed extension to the side which sits forward of the main house and is built right up to the edge of a wide, tarmacked footpath that runs alongside a wooded stream. 4. The proposal has 3 key elements: (i) the first floor of the side extension would have external insulation applied, with a brick finish; (ii) a front canopy porch would be infilled, linking the side extension to the front bay window; and (iii) the garage at ground floor level of the side extension would be converted to accommodation, with a window replacing the garage door at the front. The Council raises no objection to the garage conversion, which would not cause any harm to local character or appearance. 5. Due to the house’s location next to the footpath and a gap in the built frontage, the existing side extension is prominent in public views. It detracts from the street scene due to its forward projection, bulky form and flat roof. The proposed external insulation would project about 100mm further from the upper parts of the walls and it seems doubtful that the new brick finish would fully match the bricks of either the original house or the already slightly Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3195957 2 different bricks of the extension. The proposed alteration would further emphasise the uncomplementary form and appearance of the existing side extension, harming the character of the house and the local street scene. 6. The Council objects to the proposed small porch on the grounds that it would link to the 2 storey extension and project too far forward, 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. The amount of forward projection, would, however, be only slight. Porches like this are so common in the local area as to be part of its established character. I find that no harm would arise from this part of the proposal, seen in the local context. 7. Although I find the proposed porch and garage conversion to be acceptable, I conclude that the proposed external insulation would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the house and the local area. The proposal as a whole therefore conflicts with the aims of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies, Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan 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. 8. I recognise the worthy intention behind the insulation proposal, to improve energy efficiency and living conditions. I understand that the alternative of internal insulation would significantly reduce the space in the room over the garage. Although I give these matters some weight, I do not find them to be sufficient to override my objection in regard to the main issue. 9. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR