Retention of the roof of the single storey extension and alterations to the conservatory as built

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 March 2019 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/19/3222102 1 Langdale Drive, Hayes UB4 8SS • 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 L S Bhogal against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application, Ref. 48855/APP/2018/3562, dated 7 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 November 2018. • The development proposed is the retention of the roof of the single storey extension and alterations to the conservatory as built. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension and a conservatory at 1 Langdale Drive, Hayes in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 48855/APP/2018/3562, dated 7 October 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. A-01B; A-02B; A-03B; A-05B; A-06B; 2) The works to accord with condition 1) above shall be carried out and completed within three months of the date of this Decision or such longer period as may be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the extension and conservatory as currently built but with proposed alterations on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its immediate surroundings. Reasons 3. The previously approved single storey extension has been constructed with a partly pitched rather than a flat roof. In my view this is an improvement on the original permission in terms of its design and appearance. And as the officer’s report does not assert that this deviation from the permitted scheme raises any other issues, I consider it is acceptable. 4. The conservatory does not have a permission and the Council’s concern is that together with the extension the cumulative depth ‘fails to respect the architectural integrity of the host dwelling and results in an incongruous addition to the property and the wider area’. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/19/3222102 2 5. However, I agree with the grounds of appeal that ‘incongruous’ is not the correct description, as the conservatory is of a standard design and materials and positioned within private space at the rear of the property where most conservatories are located. 6. That said, the structure as built including the lean to on its north eastern flank does not achieve a degree of subservience to both the host building and the rear extension necessary to achieve a well-mannered addition to the dwelling. The proposed removal of the two side elements as indicated on the application drawings would result in a conservatory of a proportionate size at the centre of the extension and with ample space to the flank boundaries. 7. I acknowledge that the overall length of the additions is greater than the maximum envisaged in the Council’s HDAS guidelines, but as pointed out for the appellant it is similar to the current tolerances for detached dwellings under the Government’s prior approval guidelines, albeit this operates on a slightly different procedural basis. And as the grounds of appeal also correctly argue, the guidelines should always be interpreted on a case by case basis, because it is a harmful conflict with them that matters rather than just a technical conflict. 8. In this case I am therefore satisfied that the amended scheme under the appeal application would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its immediate surroundings. Accordingly, it would also not harmfully conflict with the HDAS guidelines; Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies 2012; Policies BE13, BE15 & BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies 2012; Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 9. I shall therefore allow the appeal. I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A condition to require the existing breach of planning control to be remedied promptly is also reasonable and necessary, again in the interests of proper planning. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR