Part two storey, part single storey side extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 x rooflights and alterations to side elevation including demolition of existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 October 2020 by L McKay MA MRTPI Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th November 2020. Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/20/3256649 57 Long Lane, Ickenham UB10 8QU • 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 Manish Bhundia against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application Ref 30632/APP/2020/1626, dated 27 May 2020, was refused by notice dated 23 July 2020. • The development proposed is part two storey, part single storey side extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 x rooflights and alterations to side elevation including demolition of existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part two storey, part single storey side extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 x rooflights and alterations to side elevation including demolition of existing garage at 57 Long Lane, Ickenham UB10 8QU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 30632/APP/2020/1626, dated 27 May 2020 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the following Schedule. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the Ickenham Village Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 3. The appeal site is in a row of relatively large, detached properties set back from Long Lane, a main arterial route. The other side of Long Lane contains a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties along with larger blocks of flats. The width of the highway and avenue of trees along both sides of Long Lane give the area a spacious, verdant character. 4. Most dwellings along this part of Long Lane are of similar age and form part of the Metroland development of Ickenham. While there are various styles of dwelling in the area, many include Arts and Crafts style features, including half-timber decoration and eaves detailing. Most have brick or part render and part brick elevations and hipped roofs. The appeal property is one of three in this section of road with half-timber detailing, along with Nos 45 and 47, which are further along the road, either side of the junction with The Paddock. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/20/3256649 2 5. The CA derives significance from the layout and detailing of the built form of the residential areas within it and their association with the Metropolitan railway line and halt at Ickenham, as well as the avenue along Long Lane and the green spaces and substantial historic buildings interspersed between them. Due to its traditional form and half-timbering, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and the CA. 6. The existing dwelling has more space to the side of it than nearby properties, many of which largely fill the width of their plots. While the proposed side extension would partly infill the gap between the host property and No 59, it would be set 1.5m off the side boundary, as required by Policy DMHD1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2), and as a result, the remaining gap would be consistent with others in the area. Furthermore, the property as extended would not be noticeably wider than other dwellings in the immediate area. 7. The main roof of the proposed side extensions would be the same height as the existing roof, however the first floor would be set well back from the front of the dwelling, meaning that the decorative front gable would remain the key feature of the frontage. The existing dwelling has a small area of flat roof in the centre, and the proposal would enlarge this somewhat, creating an L-shaped area of crown roof. However, due to the angle of view and the position of No 59, this would not be seen from the road. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy DMHD1 which seeks to avoid large crown roofs. Overall, therefore, due to the set back of the proposed side extensions and their limited width, they would appear subordinate to the main dwelling. 8. The appellant has confirmed that the proposed materials are incorrectly shown on the submitted plans, and that the proposed extension would be finished in the same materials as the existing dwelling, with a matching front window and timber detailing. Final details of the materials and timber design could be secured by planning condition. Subject to appropriate detailing, the proposal would respect the design of the original house and the features that contribute positively to the CA. 9. With the proposed extensions, the host property would be of different proportions to the other half-timbered dwellings Nos 45 and 47. However, those properties are some distance from the site and not directly seen in conjunction with it other than in wider views, with several other dwelling styles in between. They are not therefore seen together as a group. Consequently, the change to the appeal property would not harm the contribution of these three dwellings to the character and appearance of the area or the CA. 10. The appeal property already has a rear extension, however this is not seen from public viewpoints. Therefore, although the proposal, together with the existing extensions, would result in a considerable enlargement of the original dwelling, there would be no adverse cumulative impact on the character, appearance or quality of the existing street or wider area. 11. Accordingly, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the area and the CA. I therefore find no conflict with Policies BE1 and HE1 of the Local Plan Part 1 or Policies DMHD1, DMHB1, DMHB4 and DMHB11 of the LPP2, which require high quality design that does not adversely affect the character of the area or the historic environment. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/20/3256649 3 12. Furthermore, I find no conflict with Policy 7.8 of the London Plan or the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, both of which seek to conserve the significance of heritage assets. 13. The Council suggests that an extant permission for a two-storey side extension would be preferable to the appeal scheme. However, I have found that the proposal would be acceptable when considered on its own merits, and therefore while the Council may have a preference between the two schemes, it is for the appellant to choose which they wish to construct. Conditions 14. A condition to secure implementation in accordance with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. However, as set out above, conditions are needed to ensure the materials and front window preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The final design of the proposed roof lights is also necessary for the same reason. 15. In order to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring occupiers, it is also necessary for the proposed new first floor side windows to be obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7m above internal floor level. Although this is specified on the plans, a condition is needed to specify a trigger for compliance, and to ensure that the windows are thereafter permanently retained in this form. Conclusion 16. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed. L McKay INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/20/3256649 4 Schedule of 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: A101 + A201, A102 + A202, A103 + A203, A104 + A204, A105 + A205, A106 + A206, A107 + A207, A108 + A208, A209, except in respect of the external materials, rooflights and the new first floor front window shown on those plans. 3) The extensions hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all new first-floor windows in the side elevations of the existing dwelling and the extensions hereby approved have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured and fixed glazing shall be retained thereafter. 4) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no brick, render, timber or other cladding shall be installed on the exterior surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted, unless in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall include the colour, finish and texture of all render and brickwork and the design, colour and finish of the timber detailing. 5) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the window hereby permitted in the front elevation of the extensions at first-floor level shall match the existing first-floor three-light window on the front elevation of 57 Long Lane in terms of its design, materials, colour, finish, reveal and pane arrangement. 6) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no roof lights shall be installed in the extensions hereby permitted unless in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.