Side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 August 2018 by Penelope Metcalfe BA(Hons) MSc DipUP DipDBE MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/18/3203888 16 Lansbury Avenue, Feltham, TW14 0JP  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 Mohammed Malik against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 00679/16/P4, dated 6 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 March 2018.  The development proposed is side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The development has already been carried out. Main issues 3. I consider that the main issues in this case are its effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Reasons 4. 16 Lansbury Avenue is at one end of a terrace of four two storey houses. It is typical of the form of development in the street, where the pattern of terraces of four houses is consistent along its length. They are characterised by tile hanging at first floor level, hipped roofs and similar fenestration. Many of them have bay windows with a shallow overhang above the front door and the rest of the ground floor front wall. Many have added front porches with lean-to tiled roofs. 5. No. 16 has a large front porch with a lean-to roof stretching the full width of the front elevation covering the porch and an open area. There is an existing single storey rear extension approximately 6m deep and a full width rear dormer window. 6. The single storey extension the subject of this appeal has been carried out in accordance with the plans submitted with the application apart from there being access into it from the main part of the house and a small utility room at the rear. It has a flat roof and a half-glazed door at the front, and is built from level with the original front wall along the full depth of the side of the house to level with the rear wall of the existing rear extension. It forms a long narrow Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3203888 2 room which at the time of my visit appeared to be in use as a hallway/boot room. The external finish appears not to have been completed. 7. Relevant policies in this case include policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (the local plan) which relate to urban design and require development, including residential extensions, to respond sensitively to the context and character of the area. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extension Guidelines 2017 (the SPD) gives more detailed advice for single storey side/rear extensions. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework updated in July 2018. Character and appearance 8. I consider that the design and form of the extension are acceptable in terms of its width, height and flat roof as built and the proposed external finish. However, it fails to meet the advice in the SPD regarding providing a set back from the main front wall of at least 1m in order to prevent the creation of a terracing effect along the street. 9. There is a marked consistency along the street with regard to the style of porches and their forward projection, and the separation between properties. There are very few instances of structures more substantial than gates in the gaps and this allows the form and pattern of the terraces to remain evident. The SPD advises that any side extension should be set back by 1m to maintain this pattern and avoid a terracing effect. 10. The extension as built is flush with the front wall of the original house. The lack of a 1m setback could be viewed as a relatively minor detail. However, I consider that in the context of the regular pattern of development in the area it would be unacceptable. In my view, although each development proposal should be determined on its own merits, allowing this extension would make it difficult for the Council to resist similar proposals in the future. The cumulative effect of that would be to introduce an appearance of terracing which would be out of keeping with the present character and appearance of the area. 11. The appellant has indicated a willingness to set the front wall back by 1m. However, I do not have before me any plans to support this. I consider that it is not appropriate to impose a condition to require such an amendment, because it would be necessary for the Council to have the opportunity to consider the amendment through the normal procedure of a planning application. This is particularly so since the extension has been built and consideration would need to be given to a time frame for rebuilding if the Council granted permission. 12. I conclude that the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to local plan policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 and the SPD. Living conditions 13. The extension is built up to the side boundary with No. 18. The latter has a single storey rear extension approximately 3m deep and is set at a slight angle from No. 16 such that its separation from the common boundary varies from approximately 1m – 1.5m. The boundaries of the rear garden of No. 16 are all concrete block walls, approximately 2m high. In my opinion, the height of the extension is such that it has little more effect on the outlook and the level of Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3203888 3 light experienced by the occupiers of No. 18 than the existing high block wall along the boundary. I note that there was no objection from the occupiers following consultation. 14. There is a rear extension to No. 14 of approximately 6m. The occupier raised no objection to the works but expressed concerns regarding the party wall. This is not a planning matter and is therefore not for me to address. 15. I conclude that the extension does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents and that, in this respect, it is consistent with local plan policies CC1, CC2, and SC7 and the guidance in the SPD. Conclusions 16. I have found that the development does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents. However, this does not outweigh my finding that it is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 17. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. PAG Metcalfe INSPECTOR