Single storey side extension; garage conversion; new front porch canopy and new driveway entrance gates

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3213275 46 Linksway, Northwood HA6 2XB  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 and Mrs Warren and Nicola Appel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application, Ref. 14935/APP/2018/2359, dated 25 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 September 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey side extension; garage conversion; new front porch canopy and new driveway entrance gates. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the single storey side extension. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the new front porch canopy and new driveway entrance gates and planning permission is granted for a new front porch canopy and new driveway entrance gates at 46 Linksway, Northwood HA6 2XB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 14935 /APP/2018/2359, dated 25 June 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. AAN/06 Rev. A; AAN/07; AAN/09 Rev. A; & AAN/10, including annotations thereon. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed side extension and entrance gates on the character and appearance of the street scene of Linksway and the wider Copsewood Estate Area of Special Local Character (‘the ASLC’). Reasons 3. The main proposal of the appeal scheme is a single storey side extension to the front part of the host dwelling’s northern flank which forms part of the set-back return building line facing The Broadwalk. The main area of the addition would be a replacement garage for the existing integral garage, which would be converted to living space, whilst a smaller rearward section would be a new pool changing room and shower room. 4. I recognise that the proposal would improve the ground floor layout of the house and its facilities, whilst at the same time maintaining garaging provision Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3213275 2 at the property. Its merits also extend to the extension being proportionate to the dwelling. Indeed, in my view it could be reasonably be described as being of a modest scale, and together with a sympathetic design I consider that in itself it is an acceptable proposal. In this regard, I note that despite some technical conflict as regards height with the Council’s HDAS: Residential Extensions SPD, the Delegated Report accepts that the proposal would largely comply with that document in respect of its relationship with the existing house. 5. However, Section 4 of HDAS which deals with single storey side extensions includes paragraph 4.13 on ‘Building Lines’. This says in effect that as regards the location of extensions, the relationship with building lines, frontages and extensions should be respected; that building lines within schemes should relate to the street pattern, and that development should have a clearly defined building line creating a clear visual edge. 6. The paragraph also explains that ‘in some instances varied building lines can achieve diversity and interest’. However, the somewhat formal and regular established development pattern of the Copsewood Estate ASLC is clearly not such an instance. And from my visit to the appeal site, I am firmly of the view that the junction of Linksway and The Broadwalk in particular is a location where the retention of reasonable distances between the buildings and their boundaries to the roads is essential to retain the spacious character of the locality. 7. Applying this planning judgement to the appeal property, I consider that all the other aspects of paragraph 4.13 are important in this case. The existing return building line to The Broadwalk is of a fairly limited depth, especially in relation to the dwelling and plot size; it is characteristic of the street pattern; the existing north elevation of the dwelling provides a clear definition of a building line and creates an equally clear visual edge. By way of contrast, the proposed extension, even though single storey in height and of a length less than the house, would not respect the existing building line and street pattern, whilst at the same time would break up the clear visual edge. 8. As the Delegated Report points out, there would be a set-back of only between 0.8m and 1.1m from the boundary to the building, necessitating the removal of existing mature planting that presently offsets the already fairly modest gap relative to the spacious character of the area. There would be little or no room for replacement planting, and with the building’s prominent position on this open corner of the junction between Linksway and The Broadwalk the extension would inevitably draw the eye as an intrusive addition to the street scene. (I use the term ‘open’ to mean an absence of built form, as landscaping cannot be relied upon to permanently and effectively to hide unsympathetic alterations to the development pattern.) 9. I have had regard to the fact that there was a permission for a slightly lower extension in the same position, initially granted in 2011 and renewed in 2014. However, the 2014 permission is now time-expired and whilst policies may not have changed significantly since it was extant, it is for the decision-maker at any one time who must apply their planning judgement. 10. Overall in terms of the proposed side extension, and taking all other matters raised into account, I conclude that the development would have an Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3213275 3 unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene of Linksway and the wider Copsewood Estate ASLC. This would be in conflict with Policies BE1 & HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies 2012; Policies BE5, BE13, BE15, & BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Saved UDP Policies 2012; the Council’s HDAS Residential Extensions SPD and Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. 11. Turning more briefly to the remainder of the scheme the Council, correctly in my view, has no objection to the new front porch canopy. However, it regards the proposed gates as being out of keeping with the street scene and ASLC. I take a contrary view as the proposed gates are of a traditional material, are not excessively ornate, would have visual permeability and be only 1.5m high. I am also puzzled as to the reference in the officer’s report to gates of this type being ‘the odd exception’ when from my observations of neighbouring houses, and in particular the detailed written and photographic evidence in the grounds of appeal, they are in fact commonplace in Linksway. Provided gates of this type are not too high and are used together with other forms of boundary treatment at a particular property they neither cause harm nor conflict with the relevant Council’s policies - Polices BE1, HE1, BE5, BE13 & BE19 as detailed above and saved UDP Policy BE6. 12. I shall therefore the appeal and grant planning permission for the front porch canopy and driveway gates, subject to a condition requiring compliance with the approved (in part) plans which is for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I see no reason for a materials condition in addition, as the plan details are clear. 13. In regard to the proposed side extension, for the reasons explained the appeal is dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR