For a double storey rear and side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 May 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3197016 188 Harefield Road, Uxbridge UB8 1PS  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 Matthew Dhanoa against the decision of the London Borough of Hillingdon Council.  The application Ref 72018/APP/2017/3591, dated 4 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 December 2017.  The development proposed is for a double storey rear and side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a double storey rear and side extension at 188 Harefield Road, Uxbridge UB8 1PS in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. 72018/APP/2017/3591, dated 4 October 2017 subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years of the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 17/3145/103, 17/3145/104, 17/3145/105, 17/3145/106, 17/3145/107A, 16/2981/201 and 17/3145/202. 3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling relates to a red and yellow brick house with hints of Art Deco within its architecture. It is located within a low density residential area which is quite verdant in its setting and is of a similar design and construction to the dwelling found at 186 Harefield Road. Both of these dwellings, and those either side, generally comprise quite large detached houses set within generous plots. 4. Presently, both nos 186 and 188 have a single storey garage each adjacent to their shared boundary, and there is a quite reasonable gap between the Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3197016 2 neighbouring properties at first floor level, accentuated by the staggered building line created between the two. This would be eroded to a degree at first floor level, although the overall width of the side extension would be slight and there would be a visual benefit in removing built development at ground floor level through the demolition of the garage serving no 188. 5. I acknowledge that the proposal before me also includes a double storey rear extension that would form part and parcel with the side extension; and when viewing the site from the north-west the existing gap between the two neighbouring dwellings would be reduced. However, I consider that the spacing would still enable a sense of spaciousness to be maintained which would include a 1m gap to the boundary as required by the Council’s HDAS: Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2008). 6. In coming to this conclusion I have had regard to the decision of my colleague in the determination of the previous appeal pursuant to Ref. APP/R5510/W/17/3072991, however there are substantial differences between the two proposals with the previous being for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a block of flats of a far greater depth and massing than the proposed extensions, the subject of this appeal. 7. I therefore consider that the proposal would protect the character and appearance of the area and would comply with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 – Strategic Policies (2012) and Policies BE13, BE19 and BE22 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 – Saved UDP Polices (2012) which require all new development to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment through the achievement of the high quality of design, seek to prevent development if the layout and appearance fail to harmonise with the existing street scene or other features of the area which are desirable to retain or enhance and require residential extensions two or more storeys in height to be set back a minimum of 1m from the side boundary of the property for the full height of the building. Conclusion and Conditions 8. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 9. Other than the standard time condition, the Council has suggested a condition requiring the external materials to be used in the construction of the extensions to match those of the existing building. In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area, this is an appropriate condition. In addition, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, a condition requiring that the development is carried out with the approved plans is imposed. 10.The Council have requested that a condition be imposed that requires a scheme of hard and soft landscaping to be secured as the proposal is for a modest domestic extension I consider that this is unnecessary and not in the public interest to do so. C J Tivey INSPECTOR