Two-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 October 2018 by D Child BA BPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3208440 47 Central Avenue, Hayes UB3 2BW  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Tajinder Billing against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 36654/APP/2018/1757, dated 10 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 July 2018.  The development proposed is a two-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development upon: 1) the character and appearance of the area; and 2) the living conditions of the occupants of 45 Central Avenue (No 45), having particular regard to daylight, outlook and sunlight. Reasons Living conditions 3. Planning permission was previously refused for the erection of a part two- storey, part single-storey rear extension. The appeal scheme differs because the ground floor footprint is reduced, but at first floor the depth is greater. 4. The first floor of the appeal scheme would fail to adhere to the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement, Supplementary Planning Document ‘Residential Extensions’ (SPD), because its depth would breach a notional 45 degree line taken from the midpoint of the adjacent first floor bedroom window of No 45. The SPD sets out this notional 45 degree line to ensure that residential extensions do not cause significant harm to the living conditions of neighbours due to over-dominance and loss of daylight. 5. By virtue of its proximity, massing and scale, the extension would significantly reduce the amount of daylight entering the adjacent first floor bedroom of No 45. The outlook from the adjacent first floor bedroom of No 45 is currently unrestricted at first floor level. The side wall of the extension would be very close to the window. As a consequence, the extension would also have an overly dominant effect. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3208440 2 6. The extension would be positioned to the northeast of No 45 and therefore it would not cast shade by disrupting the path of direct sunlight. However, this would not overcome the harmful impacts upon daylight and outlook outlined above. 7. The lack of any objections from neighbours does not remove the need to consider the effect of the proposed extension upon the living conditions of neighbours or alter my findings. I appreciate the appellant’s desire to extend the dwelling to provide additional space but for the above reasons, I conclude that the development would significantly harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 45. 8. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with saved policies BE19, BE20 and BE21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan, which together seek to protect neighbouring residential amenity from such impacts. These policies are consistent with Paragraph 127(f) of the revised National Planning Policy Framework, which states that decisions should create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Character and appearance 9. 47 Central Avenue (No 47) is located within a residential area, set back from the highway between terraces of two-storey dwellings. It is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling which has previously been extended to the side and rear. The side extension limits views towards the rear of the property from Central Avenue. 10. The two-storey extension would extend the full width of the original rear elevation of No 47. It would project approximately 3.6 metres from the rear elevation of the existing property, and therefore it would be largely obscured in public views by the existing two-storey side extension. The first floor flat-roofed addition would not add significant bulk or mass in public views. As a consequence, the appeal scheme would have a very limited presence in the street scene. Moreover, the extension would have an appropriate degree of subservience as it would be set down from the ridge, use matching facing brick and part of it would incorporate a hipped roof. These aspects would reflect the appearance and design of the host dwelling and therefore harmonise with it. 11. The proposed flat roofed element would not have a particularly harmonious form, but for the reasons already given this would not be harmful. In light of the foregoing, the overall extension would not be unduly dominant in views from the street, or be at odds with the design of the host dwelling. 12. I therefore conclude that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the area, including the Central Avenue, Hayes Area of Special Local Character. As a result, it would adhere to saved policies HE1, BE1, BE5, BE15 and BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan, which seek high standards of design that improve or complement the character of an area and harmonise with the existing streetscene in areas of special local character. Overall Conclusion 13. The appeal scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the area but it would significantly harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 45. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3208440 3 As a result, it would not accord with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed. D Child INSPECTOR