Alteration to the porch 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/19/3222103 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/2018/3563, dated 7 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 November 2018. • The development proposed is alteration to the porch as built. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alteration to the porch as built at 1 Langdale Drive, Hayes in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 48855/APP/2018/3563, dated 7 October 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A-101B; A-102B; A-103E; A-105B; A106-B; 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 porch as currently built but with the proposed alterations on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of Langdale Drive. Reasons 3. The Council considers that because the porch and canopy as built extend the entire width of the front elevation of the dwelling, the scale and bulk together with the design fail to represent a subordinate and sympathetic addition. This is in contrast with the permission given for a smaller porch in January 2016, and I agree with this assessment. 4. The appeal application proposes to remove the canopy and supporting column and with a re-modelled roof leave the porch itself in situ. However, the Council considers that in the absence of other front additions to the houses in Langdale Drive the retained porch would be an intrusive and discordant addition to the street scene, in conflict with its HDAS Residential Extensions guidelines and Local Plan policies. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/19/3222103 2 5. However, I saw on my visit that the appeal dwelling differs from the predominant character and appearance of the street scene. In addition to being set forward from other dwellings it is a detached house with an individual appearance rather than one half of a pair of a number of semi-detached dwellings of the same original design. 6. The latter do not have any frontage additions and if the appeal property was either one of these dwellings or positioned amongst them I would have no doubt that both the ‘as built’ scheme and the modified porch now proposed would disturb the pleasing rhythm and symmetry of Langdale Drive and set a precedent for others to follow, thereby exacerbating the harmful effect. 7. However, in addition to being detached and of a different appearance to the houses to the west, No. 1 also has a quite different position and setting. It is the first house in the road and reads as much with the rear garden of No. 419 Lansbury Drive and the substantial highway grass verge as with the higher density development in the remainder of Langdale Drive. 8. Although the proposed modification to the porch would be such as to result in the addition being larger than that approved, I consider that with its modified roof and matching external materials it would nonetheless be perceived as being proportionate to the front elevation. The altered and smaller porch would not draw the eye as being incongruous in its context. 9. I acknowledge that the development does not fully comply with the relevant parts of the Council’s HDAS guidelines, but as the grounds of appeal 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. 10. 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 the Langdale Drive street scene. 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. 11. 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