Single storey wrap around extension together with a gable roofed side extension at first floor level

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 March 2019 by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/19/3222003 58 Crescent Gardens, Ruislip HA4 8TA • 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 & Mrs Wallace against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application Ref 69842/APP/2018/3340, dated 14 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 November 2018. • The development proposed was originally described as a single storey wrap around extension together with a gable roofed side extension at first floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I have considered the proposal based on the description on the Council’s decision notice which is as follows: ‘Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 2 rear and 1 front rooflights and conversion of roof from hip to gable end’ This provides greater clarity as to the extent of the proposed development than the description on the planning application form and this description is also used on the appellant’s appeal form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. Crescent Gardens is characterised by mainly two-storey semi-detached dwellings. Spacing between the pairs of semi-detached dwellings is an important feature of the area with any side projections generally being single storey to retain a gap between neighbouring properties at first floor level. Some dwellings have retained original hipped roofs and others have been altered with hip to gable extensions and flat roofed dormer windows to the rear roof slopes. 5. The proposal would alter the main roof of No 58 from a side hip to a side gable with a further two-storey extension to the side of this. The two-storey side Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/19/3222003 2 extension would be set away from the boundary with No 56 at first floor level and the roof would be stepped down from the proposed gable. The side extension would abut the boundary with No 56 at ground floor level and would have a parapet flat roof where it extends past the first floor element of the proposal. The proposed mix of roof forms would give the dwelling a visually disjointed appearance and would unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings detracting from their current distinctive design. The first floor side extension would also be at odds with the gaps generally retained between properties which helps to define the character of the street. 6. The design of the proposed dormer includes glazing spanning the full width and height of its rear facing elevation. The glazing would be taller than the first floor windows on the rear elevation of the dwelling. The proposed dormer would also be in contrast to the design of flat roof dormers on other dwellings close to the site which generally have tile cladding to their elevations and smaller window proportions. The design of the proposed dormer would be out of keeping with the more traditional design and materials of the host dwelling and would appear incongruous within the wider setting. 7. I noted during my size visit the first floor side extension to a similar style dwelling at No 64. This neighbouring extension is not of a design which reflects the general character of the area in terms of design or gaps retained between dwellings and therefore is not an example which would convince me to reach an alternative view in this instance. Whilst there are properties in the area that have had hip to gable extensions including dwellings with the same distinctive design as the appeal dwelling, gaps to boundaries particularly at first floor level have been retained on the examples I noted on site. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there are other extensions in the area that are comparable to the appeal proposal. 8. Whilst matching materials are proposed, this would not overcome my concerns in respect of the design of the proposals. I also acknowledge that policy guidelines for the parameters of an extension can sometimes be balanced against overall design considerations. However, in this case I find the design of the proposal does not complement the host dwelling or the surrounding area. 9. To conclude the proposed extensions and rear dormer would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area by reason of their size, scale, bulk and design which are inconsistent with the architectural style of the host dwelling and the general retention of appropriate gaps between dwellings in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies (2012) and Policies BE13, BE15, BE19 and BE22 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (saved policies 2007) (UDP) which require amongst other things that developments are of high quality design, make a positive contribution to the local area in terms of layout, form, scale, materials and landscaping, harmonise with the existing street scene and architectural composition and proportions of the original building, complement the character of the area and where extensions are two or more storeys in height that they are set back a minimum of 1.0m from the side boundary for the full height of the building. In reaching this conclusion I have also given regard to the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Extensions (2008) which amongst other things seeks to protect gaps between dwellings, ensure extensions appear subordinate to Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/19/3222003 3 the main dwelling and that dormer roof extensions relate well to the proportions, roof forms and massing of the existing house and its neighbours. Other matters 10. The appellant suggests that in isolation the dormer window and the ground floor element of the side extension would be permitted development. I have considered the overall composition of the proposal before me which required planning permission. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. M Russell INSPECTOR