Erection of a 2 storey side, 2 storey rear and roof extension to a dwellinghouse

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 June 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 09 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3196915 37 Fairfield Road, Uxbridge UB8 1AZ  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 and Mrs Kashmiri against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 20855/APP/2017/4223 was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a 2 storey side, 2 storey rear and roof extension to a dwellinghouse. 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 North Uxbridge Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). Reasons 3. Fairfield Road is a pleasant, leafy residential street containing a mix of buildings including attractively designed and well-proportioned examples of post-war suburban housing development, with a variety of form and detailing adding interest to the street scene. There is a feeling of spaciousness, with the houses set well back from the street and with significant gaps to the sides. In the absence of any information regarding the reasons for the designation of this area as an ASLC, I regard these older houses and their layout to be important aspects of local character. More recent development on Fairfield Road includes larger blocks of flats and contemporary style houses. 4. No 37 is a handsome 2 storey detached house, with a hipped roof and a feature gable at the front - typical of the street. It sits back on a wide plot, with hedges to either side. Although it occupies most of the plot width, part of this footprint is made up of a single storey element to the side. The proposal would replace this with a 2 storey extension with a crown roof (a flat roof surrounded by pitched roofs), wrapping around to cover most of the rear elevation, plus a narrower flat roofed single storey element stretching much further to the rear. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3196915 2 5. The proposal has been designed to comply in most ways with the guidelines set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Residential Extensions. It would be set in from the side boundary, set down from the roof and would not exceed the guideline for the depth of 2 storey rear extensions. The side extension would not be more than 2/3 of the width of the main house and the pitched roofs would match those of the existing house. The Council is concerned about the use of a crown roof here, but this is not necessarily objectionable. It appears from my site visit and information submitted by the appellant that there are a number of other crown roofs on buildings in the area and that this roof form can fit into the street scene acceptably. 6. The SPD does, however, also advise that extensions should always be designed to appear subordinate to the original house. Despite compliance with the various individual guidelines, the overall effect of the proposed 2 storey extension would be to overwhelm the existing house so that the proposal would not appear to be a subsidiary element and would substantially change the character of the building. It would, due to the scale of the 2 storey extension, the size of the crown roof and the lack of articulation, lack the finer proportions and detailing of the existing house. I recognise that this is a wide and deep plot, but nevertheless find that the proposal would also, to a minor but significant effect, detrimentally reduce the spaciousness of the area by closing down the gap to the neighbouring house at first floor level. 7. The Council is concerned about a loss of symmetry, but the existing house is not symmetrical in design anyway. I note that the proposed single storey rear extension would be much deeper than the guideline limit in the SPD, but that aspect of the proposal on its own would fit well on the large plot, would be low in height and would be out of sight from the street, so that it would not cause any undue harm. These points do not, however, override my concerns. 8. I conclude that the proposal taken as a whole would unacceptably harm the character and the appearance of the house and the ASLC. It therefore conflicts with the aims of Policies BE1 and HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies, Policies BE5, 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, especially within the ASLCs. 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