Two storey rear extension and first floor side extension, loft conversion with rear facing dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 February 2019 by A Thompson BSc BTP MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/18/3218705 30 Church Road, West Drayton, UB7 7PU • 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 Sajjad Lakhanpal against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application Ref 6620/APP/2018/2694, dated 23 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 November 2018. • The development proposed is a two storey rear extension and first floor side extension, loft conversion with rear facing dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey rear extension and first floor side extension, conversion of the garage to habitable use and loft conversion with rear facing dormer at 30 Church Road, West Drayton, UB7 7PU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 6620/APP/2018/2694, dated 23 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: AH730/05 Rev A, AH730/02 Rev A and AH730/04 Rev A, subject to the restriction set out in condition 3. 3) Notwithstanding Condition 2, no part of the proposed right side elevation adjacent to 28 Church Road shall project beyond the flank wall of the property. Procedural matters 2. The Council’s description of development includes reference to the conversion of the garage to habitable use. As this adds further detail and accuracy to the description of the development that is proposed in the application, I have amended the description of development, provided by the applicant, to include explicit reference in my formal decision to this element of the proposals. 3. There appears to be some difference between the applicant and the local planning authority as to precisely what plans are subject of the appeal. Just before my site visit, the applicant submitted plan AH730/04 and asked that this plan should form the basis of the appeal proposal. A point of particular concern Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3218705 2 that is addressed on this plan is the need to avoid gutters that overhang the neighbour’s land on the right hand elevation, namely to 28 Church Street. 4. The applicant contends that Plan AH730/04 was one of the plans submitted to the Council with the application. Whether that is the case or not, the local planning authority’s decision notice is entirely clear on what plans it took into account when it made its decision to refuse planning permission and these are set out in Schedule of Plans attached to the decision notice. 5. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans listed in the decision notice. However, as an amendment of those plans to prevent an overhang of gutters onto land that forms part of No 28 Church Street would not materially alter the proposals or materially impact on the matters of concern to the local planning authority or other parties, the grant of permission is restricted to ensure the proposed development does not extend over the neighbour’s property. Following a reference back to the Council and appellant on this point, both parties have confirmed that they would not object to the imposition of such a condition. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene and the conservation area. Reasons 7. 30 Church Road is described by the Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Officer as an unremarkable detached twentieth century house within the West Drayton Green Conservation Area (the conservation area). A substantial sixteenth century front boundary wall to the property makes a very important contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and is also a listed structure. This would be unaltered by the proposed development. 8. The proposals would substantially expand the floorspace of the property, principally its depth and, as a result, a crown roof is proposed. The majority of the extension would be at the rear of the property and would extend the property by around 1.5 metres to 3.0 metres beyond the existing rear wall. The depth of extension proposed accords with the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Guidance (2008) which allows for two storey extensions of up to 4 metres in depth. 9. Similarly, the rear dormer proposed also accords with the guidance in HDAS in terms of its scale and dimensions. As the West Drayton Conservation Area Advisory Panel noted, the two storey rear extension has the effect of tidying up the existing rear elevation and the rear dormer is of modest dimensions; I concur. As the property has a substantial rear garden and is not overlooked the rear extension I find that it would not have an adverse impact on character and appearance of the wider area. 10. The increased depth of the building would be visible from Church Road. However, the proposed two storey rear element and the first floor side extension would be set down from the ridge height by about 0.5 metre. 11. Furthermore, although many buildings in the vicinity of the appeal dwelling do have fully hipped roofs, the character, age, scale and design of buildings in this part of the conservation area is quite varied. No 30 sits back from Church Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/18/3218705 3 Road, is partly obscured by the listed frontage wall and its front elevation is marginally behind the neighbouring properties, Nos 28 and 32 Church Road. Both the adjoining properties have crown roofs and, in the case of No 28, rooflights on the front and side elevations. 12. Given these factors, I do not agree that crown roof element would be notably intrusive on either the street scene or the character and appearance of the conservation area. On the contrary, any adverse impact would limited because of the factors I have identified. 13. I note that the Urban Design and Conservation Officer found that the symmetry of the front elevation would be preserved by the first floor extension as it is set well back and subordinate in terms of impact. Indeed, the proposal would involve the removal of an existing flat roofed first floor side extension which is clearly visible from Church Road and which detracts from the host building, the street scene and the conservation area. Thus I agree with the observation of the West Drayton Conservation Area Advisory Panel that the design of the first floor side extension, together with that of the garage conversion, simplifies the front elevation and makes a positive contribution to the street scene. 14. In the light of my findings above, I conclude that the limited harm and impact caused the introduction of a crown roof, with rooflights, to the building, street scene and conservation area would be more than offset by the improvements achieved by the addition of a first floor side extension in the form proposed. As a result, I find that the proposal would preserve the character and the appearance of the conservation area. 15. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would comply with Policies BE1 and HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies (2012), Policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – saved Unitary Development Plan Policies ( 2012) Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), and the adopted HDAS Supplementary Planning Guidance (2008). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals conserve or enhance the character of the conservation area and harmonise with the existing building and the street scene. 16. Turning to other factors raised by the Council, I do not consider that the proposed development would be at odds with policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, given my conclusions in relation the development plan. I note the Council’s reservations about the weight in favour of the development that can be given to the existence of similar extensions to the adjoining properties, but that does not alter my conclusion in this case. 17. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings, as this provides certainty. I have commented on the need for the third condition earlier in this decision letter. Anthony Thompson INSPECTOR