Erection of a single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2019 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/19/3222005 19 Kenbury Close, Ickenham, UB10 8HU • 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 Richard White against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application Ref 47923/APP/2018/3395, dated 21 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 November 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a single-storey rear extension. Application for Costs 1. An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single-storey rear extension at 19 Kenbury Close, Ickenham, UB10 8HU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 47923/APP/2018/3395, dated 21 September 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan, Block/Site Plan and Drg Nos RW/19/100 and RW/19/101 Rev A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and upon the living conditions at 18 Kenbury Close with particular regard to visual impact and light. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/19/3222005 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with a conservatory extension projecting beyond a shallow, single-storey addition that spans the width of the property. The proposal is to replace the conservatory with a single-storey, flat roofed extension. 5. The principle of a flat roof single-storey extension to an existing dwelling is accepted by the Council, as stated within the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document - Residential Extensions (2008). The extension would be finished with materials that would match the existing dwelling and would be contained to the rear, out of sight from the public domain. 6. In terms of size, the appeal proposal would be comparable in depth to the conservatory that it would replace. The conservatory is a lightweight structure with glazed walls above a dwarf brick wall base and with a shallow pitched roof over. Its eaves line tucks just under the eaves height of the small rear extension. The replacement extension would be a solid structure with its fascia contiguous with that on the existing rear extension. As such, the side elevation of the appeal proposal would present itself to the garden of the attached neighbour at No 18 as an alternative and slightly larger façade. Notwithstanding, it would remain positioned away from the shared common boundary with No 18. With this in mind, when drawing a comparison between the existing arrangement and the appeal proposal, there would be little meaningful change in terms of outlook, visual impact or daylight affecting the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at No 18. 7. The extension would project to a depth of 5m beyond the rear wall of its attached neighbour. This is 1.4m deeper than the guidance that is given for a single-storey extension to a property of this size and type within the HDAS. Nevertheless, given the existing context, and the absence of any loss of daylight, sunlight or outlook to the neighbouring property, this conflict is not significant. 8. My overall impression is that the appeal proposal would appear appropriately subordinate to the two-storey scale of the original house, which would remain dominant, and that there would be no significant impact upon the living conditions at 18 Kenbury Close. There would therefore be no conflict with the aims or objectives of the HDAS, or with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies (November 2012) or Policies BE13, BE15, BE19, BE20 or BE21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) insofar as they relate to either the quality of design and the need for new development to complement and harmonise with the existing local context or safeguarding residential amenity. Other Matters 9. I have noted the concerns expressed by the occupiers of the detached bungalow to the opposite neighbouring side at 20 Kenbury Close. The extension would be wider than the existing conservatory and would therefore encroach nearer to No 20. However, it would be set away from the common boundary between these properties by the width of a side pedestrian access. Furthermore, No 20 has a driveway to the side which leads to a detached Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/19/3222005 3 garage set to the rear of the property and immediately adjoining the shared boundary. Due to the separation distance between the extension and the rear elevation of No 20, and the existing context and relationship of the buildings, I am satisfied that there would be no impact upon sunlight to the rear of the neighbour’s property that would significantly impact upon their living conditions. I note also that the Council had no concern in this regard. Conditions 10. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. In the interest of maintaining the character and appearance of the area it is necessary to ensure that the external materials used match the existing building. Conclusions 11. For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area, or existing living conditions at 18 Kenbury Close. Accordingly, and in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR