First floor rear extension and flank wall alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 February 2019 by M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 28 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3208980 22 Minet Drive, Hayes UB3 3JN • 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 Ms Fairoza Nesari against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application Ref 66551/APP/2018/1562, dated 26 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 June 2018. • The development proposed is a first floor rear extension and flank wall alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling in a residential area within which such properties predominate. In common with many properties in the area, the property on the appeal site has been extended in the past. 4. Viewed from the front, only the minor alterations to the side elevation will be visible. Consequently, the proposed extension would not detrimentally impact upon the character and appearance of the appeal property or the surrounding area when viewed from the front. 5. The proposed first floor rear extension would sit above part of the recently completed ground floor extension and below the substantial dormer roof extension that replaced the hipped roof with a pitched roof and gable end. Therefore, viewed from the rear, the proposed extension would appear to be of notable scale and bulk and taken with the existing ground floor extensions would subsume the majority of the rear of the property. 6. Furthermore, the shallow pitch of hipped roof of the proposed rear extension would have an awkward appearance because it would partially overlap the dormer extension and despite the proposed use of matching materials the proposed extension would fail to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural composition and proportions of the original building. 7. The appellant has detailed examples of similar extensions found elsewhere in the surrounding area, specifically 2, 66, 74 and 81 Minet Drive. Based on those Appeal Decision APP/R550/D/18/3208980 2 that I was able to observe at my site visit, and on the limited information before me I am not satisfied that these examples, which generally relate to two storey rear extensions to properties without such large ground floor and dormer extensions, are directly comparable to the proposed development. In any event, the presence of these extensions does not outweigh the harm I have identified previously. 8. In support of the appeal the appellant has noted the limited public view points to the rear of the property. The mature trees and hedging to the appeal site, intervening open space and also in the adjoining gardens would offer some screening of the rear elevation of the proposed extension. However, notwithstanding the above, I observed at my site visit that the proposed extension would still be visible from neighbouring gardens and properties. 9. I have been referred to the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document. That the proposed extension would not affect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties is not in dispute between the parties and I have no substantive evidence before me that would cause me to reach a different conclusion. However, I find that the proposed extension is in conflict with the HDAS because the extension, in combination with the existing extensions, would not appear subordinate to the appeal property as required by the HDAS. 10. I consider that the width of the proposed first floor extension combined with the existing single storey extension would dominate the rear elevation of the original building and consequently would not respect the character and appearance of the original dwelling contrary to guidance set out in the Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies (November 2012), saved Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the Hillingdon, Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions which seek, among other things, to ensure the good design of extensions that are in keeping with character of the local area. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Brooker INSPECTOR