Front carport

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 February 2019 By H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/W/18/3216816 135a Long Lane, Hillingdon, UXBRIDGE, UB10 0AT • 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 R Thavanesan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application Ref. 31162/APP/2018/2737, dated 26 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 October 2018. • The development proposed is front carport. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is in a prominent position at the junction of Long Lane and Court Drive. The front and side boundaries of the site comprise brick walls, with metal gates at the entrance. The wider street scene is mixed in terms of the design and siting of buildings, but the appeal property forms part of a fairly consistent stretch of buildings insofar as they are set back from the road. Garages and other outbuildings close to the road are not prevalent in the street scene. The existing front garden of the appeal property is paved for vehicle parking. 4. The carport the subject of this appeal has been commenced but is not complete. The works so far include the raising of a section of the side boundary wall to form the rear wall of the proposed carport; a side wall to the carport has also been built. Both elements are visible from the neighbouring roads, with the increased wall height being a notable feature in Court Drive, and the remainder can be glimpsed from Long Lane. Whilst the Willow tree on site may provide screening for part of the year, during winter months the screening effect would be limited. 5. Due to the size of the site frontage I do not share the Council’s assessment that the proposal would appear cramped or that the site would be overdeveloped, but the proposal would nevertheless be a visually intrusive and Appeal Decision APP/R5510/W/18/3216816 2 incongruous addition in the street scene. This would be mostly due to its height and position, which would appear unduly dominant next to the footway of Court Drive. In addition, the structure would be overly large in this prominent location, at odds with the pattern of more open frontages within the immediate vicinity. Although I note that the front and one side of the structure would be open, the elevations presented to the more public viewpoints would be solid. Moreover, the expanse of tiled roof would be clearly visible from outside of the site. 6. The appellant has provided an e-mail exchange with the Council regarding the need for express planning permission, although it does not appear that the Council was responding to a plan specifying the precise location of the carport. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s frustration, permission for the appeal development is nevertheless required. The appellant has also supplied details from the Council’s website regarding Building Regulations, but that is separate legislation with different qualifying criteria. Compliance with Building Regulations does not mean that the same development is exempt from the need for planning permission. 7. I appreciate that the proposal may improve the living standards of the occupants of the property, as suggested by the appellant, but this would not outweigh the visual harm that would arise from the completed development. 8. I therefore conclude that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal site and the street scene, contrary to the aims of LP11 Policy BE1, which amongst other criteria seeks to achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterations, extensions and the public realm; and with UDP2 Policy BE13, which opposes development if its layout and appearance fail to harmonise with the existing street scene; with UDP Policy BE19, which aims to secure new development within residential areas that complements or improves the amenity and character of the area; and with guidance contained in section 9 of the ‘Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document, Residential Extensions’ 2008. 9. I find no conflict with UDP Policy BE15 as it relates specifically to alterations and extensions to existing buildings, but that does not alter my conclusion that the development would be harmful in its visual impact. 10. For the above reasons, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR 1 Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 – Strategic Policies, 2012 2 London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies, 2012