Two storey rear extension incorporating 4 side dormers; a front dormer; 4 side rooflights, and re-roofing of the existing side element (part retrospective)

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 Secret ary of State Decision date: 18th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3218771 5 Ellesmere Close, Ruislip HA4 7PQ • 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 Renato Nunes against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application, Ref. 13844/APP/2018/3058, dated 9 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 October 2018. • The development proposed is a two storey rear extension incorporating 4 side dormers; a front dormer; 4 side rooflights, and re-roofing of the existing side element (part retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the front dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Ellesmere Close street scene. Reasons 3. The grounds of appeal explain that the appellant has made a number of unauthorised changes to the approved scheme. I assume the latter to be permission reference 13844/APP/2017/2826 approved on 29 September 2017. The plans for this approval were not included in either the Council’s or appellant’s appeal files, but I have seen them by accessing the Council’s Planning Application Search facility on its website. And because the Council’s objection to the appeal relates to the rebuilding of the front dormer as opposed to retaining the then existing, appeal drawings 0119- PLA- 06_A (Roof Plan As Existing) & 0119- PLA- 07_A (Elevations As Existing) are also informative. 4. Returning to the grounds of appeal it is explained that the appeal is against the refusal of the ‘as-built’ scheme that I saw on my site visit. The exception to this is the replacement of the existing pitch roof of the dormer (which extends to the height of the main ridge) with a flat roof – as illustrated on submitted Drawing No. 0119- PLA- 83_A. However, the height and width of the as-built dormer would otherwise remain. 5. Having seen the building at close quarters and observed it from various other vantage points in the Close, I consider that the as-built dormer draws the eye as a ‘visually dominant’ feature (to use the Council’s description) and likely to Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3218771 2 be perceived as disproportionately large to the front elevation with its pleasing twin gables and bay windows. 6. Whilst the proposed change to a flat roof can be argued to represent an improvement I consider that any such benefit would be marginal. In my view the Council is correct to argue that the absence of any meaningful set-ins to the flanks would mean that the extension would remain a harmfully dominant feature. It would not read with the lower parts of the front elevation as a balanced architectural composition and its large size would continue to draw the eye because of its adverse effect on the dwelling and the street scene of the Close. The contrast with the ‘Elevations As Existing’ Drawing 0119- PLA- 07_A and its well-mannered, proportionate and aesthetically appealing principal elevation to the Close is both clear and significant. 7. The grounds of appeal refer to the full width dormer at No. 21 Glenfield Close, Ruislip and dormers at other properties in the neighbourhood as a justification for the proposal. I acknowledge that variety in street scenes is normal and that other examples of front dormers can be found that are considered to support the proposal. However, I give this very limited weight because it is the harm caused in this particular case that is the determining factor. And I am entirely at one with the Council’s planning judgement that a flat roofed dormer of the size proposed would be unacceptably harmful to the host dwelling and the street scene of Ellesmere Close. 8. This would be in conflict with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies 2012 and Policies BE13, BE15 & BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies 2012. The scheme would also be contrary to Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 9. I have noted the appellant’s request for a Split Decision to encompass approval for the side dormers as built and to which the Council, on balance, has no objection. However, such a decision for a single element of a proposal (in this case the roof of the building) does not meet the Planning Inspectorate’s criteria for Split Decisions, and I consider that this matter would be best addressed by agreement with the Council, presumably through a fresh application. It is important for the formal planning record to be clear in terms of the scope of any approvals. 10. For the reasons explained, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR