Proposed first floor pitched roof side extension to form a new ensuite bathroom to existing property, proposed extension is directly above an existing single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 August 2018 by Caroline Mulloy BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3204119 13 Linden Close, Ruislip HA4 8TN  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 Rashmeeta Matharu against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 34751/APP/2018/547, dated 12 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 April 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘proposed first floor pitched roof side extension to form a new ensuite bathroom to existing property, proposed extension is directly above an existing single storey side extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor side extension at 13 Linden Close, Ruislip HA4 8TN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 34751/APP/2018/547, dated 12 February 2018, subject to the following 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: Site plan; drawing no 160.EX.02 Rev 00-existing elevations; Drawing no 13.EX.01 Rev 00-Existing plans; Drawing no 13.PR.02 Rev 00-Proposed elevations; Drawing no 13.PR.01 Rev00-Existing photographs and proposed plan. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first floor window on the side elevation serving the bathroom has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.8 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Procedural Matter 2. The description of the proposal on the application form and the decision notice are different. I have used the description contained in the decision notice at paragraph 1 above in the interests of brevity. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3204119 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey, end of terrace situated at the end of a cul-de- sac within a residential estate. The property is comprised of render and tiles and has bay windows to the ground and first floors, a porch to the front and a gable feature to the roof. The property has been extended previously by way of a two storey side extension and a single storey side extension to the south elevation. 5. Linden Close is characterised by terraced properties set in groups and of a similar design to the appeal property. Properties are set back from the road behind short front gardens enclosed by low boundary walls. The gaps between groups of terraces together with the gap created by the access road to the side of the appeal property allows views through to gardens and houses to the rear, providing relief from built development. 6. It is proposed to erect a first floor side extension which would be built directly above the existing single storey side extension. The extension would be constructed in materials to match the existing. It would have a hipped roof to reflect the existing roof and those of surrounding properties. 7. Paragraph 5.10 of the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions (2008) states that the width and height of the extension in relation to the original house should be considerably less than that of the original house and be between half and two-thirds of the main house width depending on the plot size and character of the area. 8. The proposal would have a width of around 2m which would be less than a quarter of the width of the existing house. However, it would adjoin an existing side extension and so it would have a cumulative width of around 5m amounting to approximately 95% of the width of the original dwelling house (5.5m). The proposal would, therefore, conflict with this aspect of the HDAS. Consequently, the Council considers that due to the cumulative effect of the existing and proposed side extension that it would not appear subordinate to the original dwelling house. It also considers that the extension would result in the closing of an important gap characteristic to the area, resulting in a cramped appearance. 9. Paragraph 5.1 of the HDAS states that all two storey extensions should be set back a minimum of 1m from the side boundary of the property in order to protect the gaps between properties, preventing them combining visually to form a terraced appearance. Paragraph 5.3 goes onto say that in situations where two storey or first floor side extensions are proposed where the side of the house adjoins a road or open space there may be some scope for flexibility on the set-in. A relaxation of the set in may be considered where the openness of the corner plot would be maintained and return building lines are not breached. 10. At present, there are views afforded of the gardens and rear elevations of properties in Linden Avenue by virtue of the gap provided by the road between the appeal property and No 12 Linden Close. The proposal would be a minimum of 0.17m from the side boundary; however, it would sit immediately above the existing extension which already exceeds the guidance and the footprint of the host property would not be altered. Also due to the position of the property on a corner plot the two storey rear projection partly abuts the road to the rear. The proposal Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3204119 3 would not, therefore, result in built development being in closer proximity to the boundary of the appeal property than at present at ground floor level. 11. Furthermore, due to the position of the appeal property adjacent to the road, there would remain a gap of around 10m from the proposed extension to No 12. So whilst there would be a minor loss of a visual gap at first floor level, due to the width of the road there would remain a significant visual gap affording views through to the gardens and properties beyond. Consequently, I consider that a relaxation of the set in is justified in this case. 12. I acknowledge that the proposal would exceed the guidance contained at paragraph 5.10 of the HDAS which requires a side extension to not exceed two thirds of the width of the original house. However, the two storey extension has been in place for some time and the existing single storey extension already exceeds this guidance. In addition, the extension would be modest in scale and set back from the front elevation by around a metre and set down from the main roof ridge by around 1m. Consequently, the proposal would read as an extension to the property as opposed to a continuation of the existing frontage. It would, therefore, appear subservient to the existing property. Moreover, the visual gap between the appeal property and No 12 would be retained affording views through to the gardens and properties beyond. 13. Whilst there would be some limited conflict with the HDAS with regards to the width of the resultant house when compared to the original, this is only guidance which needs to be applied taking into account the particular characteristics of the site and surrounding area. Due to the location of the appeal property and in the specific circumstances of this case, I do not consider that the proposal would appear cramped or result in the loss of a characteristic visual gap. 14. For the reasons stated, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host property or the area. It would, therefore, not be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One-Strategic Policies (2012), saved Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan 1998 which collectively seek, amongst other things, to ensure that new development and extensions to existing buildings achieve a high quality of design which harmonises with the host property and the existing street scene. Conditions 15. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring the materials to be used in the extension to match those of the existing house in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. 16. In order to avoid potential over-looking of the rear gardens of Nos 25 and 27 Linden Avenue, I have imposed a condition requiring that the bathroom window on the side elevation is obscurely glazed and non-opening below 1.8m. Conclusion 17. For the reasons stated and taking all other considerations into account the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions set out at paragraph 1 above. Caroline Mulloy Inspector