Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 November 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3208671 10 Attlee Road, Hayes UB4 2JB  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 Ahmed Zaki against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application, Ref. 65635/APP/2018/1071, dated 20 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 May 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at 10 Attlee Road, Hayes in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 65635/APP/2018/1071, dated 20 March 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this Decision; 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. 1636/1 & 1361/2; 3) The materials to be used in 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 extension on the living conditions for the adjoining occupiers at No. 12 Attlee Road, with particular regard to outlook and light. The other effects referred to in the Notice of Refusal all fall within these two categories. Reasons 3. The proposed single storey rear extension would be the full width of the end of terrace house and to a depth of just over 5m with a maximum height of 3.7m. The Council’s concern is essentially that the extension would exceed the maximum 3.6m depth and 3.4m height stipulated in its adopted SPD, the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement: ‘Residential Extensions’ 2008 (‘HDAS’). As a result, it is considered that there would be an unacceptable loss of outlook and light. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3208671 2 4. However, in this case there would be a dual pitched roof rising at a shallow angle to the apex at a height just 0.3m above the HDAS guideline, whilst at the boundary the eaves height would be a relatively modest 2.3m. Bearing in mind these figures in combination with the design, and that the proposed extension would be sited to the east, there would be only a limited loss of light – mainly in the form of sunlight for a brief period in the first part of the morning. 5. There is a single living room window in the rear wall of No. 12, and whilst I acknowledge that the length of the extension would exceed the HDAS guideline maximum by 1.4m I do not consider this additional length would materially affect the outlook from that room. As regards the outlook from the garden, the houses in the terrace have relatively long gardens that back on to other gardens in Kingshill Avenue. The effect of this is for the houses in the terrace to have an open aspect with long direct views over their own and neighbours’ rear curtilages. And in these circumstances, I consider the additional metre or so in length over the HDAS figure would in itself be unlikely to be perceived as being ‘overdominant’. 6. Furthermore, the occupiers of No. 12 have not objected to the proposal and having regard to this and the climate of even more generous limits of length and height under the Government’s temporary prior notification approval scheme I take the view that these are additional factors supporting a more flexible approach. In this regard the grounds of appeal also refer to the similarly sized but perhaps less sympathetically designed extension at No. 8 allowed on appeal in 2012. In reaching a decision the Inspector would have considered the effect on the adjoining attached property at No. 6, and in my view the current proposal would be likely to have a lesser impact on the neighbour’s living conditions than in that case. 7. On balance, I conclude that the proposed extension would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions for the adjoining occupiers at No. 12 Attlee Road, with particular regard to outlook and light. There would therefore be no harmful conflict with Policies BE19, BE20 & BE21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Saved UDP Policies 2012 and paragraph 127f) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. 8. I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans will avoid uncertainty and be in the interests of proper planning. A condition in respect of external materials will ensure a harmonious form of development and safeguard visual amenity. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR