Retrospective planning consent for a front entrance porch and canopy

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: 27th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3209044 25 Hollywood Gardens, Hayes UB4 0DX • 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 Kulwinder Singh against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application, Ref. 73616/APP/2018/1606, dated 1 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 June 2018. • The development is retrospective planning consent for a front entrance porch and canopy. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a front entrance porch and canopy at 25 Hollywood Gardens, Hayes in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 73616/APP/2018/1606, dated 1 May 2018, subject to the condition that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: OS based Location Plan; Drawing Nos. 25 001 & 25 002. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the porch and canopy on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace of which it forms part and the street scene of Hollywood Gardens. Reasons 3. The officer’s report explains that the Council’s HDAS: ‘Residential Extensions’ design guidelines state that front extensions extending across the entire frontage will normally be refused permission. In this case this applies to the canopy, but when taken as a whole I consider the extension to be a minor addition of pleasing appearance and external materials, and not at all a development that draws the eye. 4. Furthermore, two of the other houses in this particular terrace have had extensions and alterations including No. 29 which has had its entire front elevation re-vamped, completely changing the appearance of the dwelling. There is therefore no longer any significant symmetry in the terrace to be affected by the porch and canopy at No. 25. 5. Looking at the wider street scene of Hollywood Gardens and indeed also nearby roads, there are many stretches of road where it is easier to find properties that Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3209044 2 have had frontage alterations and additions than those that have not. This has resulted in a varied character and appearance to this residential locality, with in some cases front extensions supported by large ornate pillars. And it is in this context, where some developments stand out incongruously from the rest, that I consider the appeal development be relatively discreet. The addition is also in keeping with the host terrace and the varied character and appearance of an area which with its large number of additions has been subject to change over the years. 6. I therefore see no harmful conflict in this instance with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies 2012; Policies BE13, BE15 & BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Saved UDP Policies 2012, and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: ‘Residential Extensions’. 7. I shall therefore allow the appeal and grant retrospective permission, subject only to a compliance with the approved plans condition for the avoidance of doubt in the Council’s records. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR