Two storey side and rear extension (Revised resubmission)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 February 2019 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3218168 3 West Hatch Manor, Ruislip HA4 8QY • 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 Mayur Mohanlal against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application, Ref. 28532/APP/2018/3014, dated 10 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 October 2018. • The development proposed is a two storey side and rear extension (Revised resubmission). 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 host dwelling as part of the semi-detached pair of houses of which it forms part and whether as a result of the development the character or appearance of the Ruislip Manor Way Conservation Area would be preserved or enhanced. Reasons 3. I saw on my visit that the appeal property and its attached neighbour at No. 1 are each one half of a semi-detached pair. Although there are some minor differences of detail, the handed front elevations of Nos. 1 and 3 maintain much of the original symmetry and balance of the buildings, thereby making a particularly positive contribution to the street scene. 4. The appeal scheme proposes a two storey addition that would be set back a metre from the main front wall but would otherwise extend the full depth of the building to wrap around the existing rear wall to a depth of up to 2m. 5. Whilst I acknowledge that the two storey addition would maintain a 1m gap to the boundary with No. 5, I share the Council’s concern that despite this and the 1m set back from the front the development would not be sufficiently subordinate to the existing building. This is because of the way that the proposed addition seeks to tie in with the existing part two storey rear extension and the large rear dormer. As the officer’s report explains, this would be a particularly awkward relationship and would be sufficiently prominent in the street scene to harmfully compromise the balance and symmetry of the semi-detached pair. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3218168 2 6. I have noted the comments in the grounds of appeal, including that the relationship between the existing flat roof and the dormer have a negative effect on the existing dwelling and that the appeal scheme is a re-submission that attempts to resolve the problems of the original proposal. I also note the appellant’s view that the Council has not been helpful in achieving a scheme that would be acceptable. 7. However, even if I were to accept those points, I consider that there is a further problem in terms of the relationship with No. 5, the left hand dwelling of the similar pair of dwellings with No. 7 as seen from the front. No. 5 has an existing side extension in the form of a garage and accommodation above, and this extends to within a metre of the boundary with the appeal property. 8. In the light of this it seems to me to be particularly important that in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the conservation area, the greater distance of 1.5m in the Council’s residential extensions guidance between a two storey side extension and the flank boundary should remain. If I were to allow the appeal there would only be a 2m gap separating the substantial width of built form comprising Nos. 1-7 West Hatch Manor. The two pairs of still largely matching semi-detached houses are read together as a distinctive and pleasing entity of a high quality inter-war traditional architectural composition in the road frontage between Manor Way and Glenalla Road. The further erosion of space between the two pairs to the extent now proposed would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character appearance of the buildings themselves, the street scene and the conservation area. 9. I have taken account of all the other points raised by the appellant and whilst I have sympathy with his difficulties in finding an acceptable solution, I consider that there would be a conflict with the Council’s policies. These are Policies BE1 & HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies 2012; Policies BE4; BE13; BE15; BE19 & BE22 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Saved UDP Policies 2012, and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: ‘Residential Extensions’, albeit I acknowledge that the appeal proposal complies in some respects with the latter. 10. The appeal scheme would additionally be contrary to Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, in particular Sections 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ and Section 16: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’. In respect of Section 16, the Ruislip Manor Way Conservation Area is a designated heritage asset and under paragraph 196 I consider that the appeal scheme would lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ to its significance, although this does not diminish the weight of the harm that I have identified. Despite this less than substantial harm I do not regard the improvement in the accommodation of the appeal property to be of sufficient public benefit to outweigh my conclusion that in its present form the proposed extension would be unacceptable. 11. For the reasons explained above, the appeal is dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR