Erection of a side roof extension, alterations to existing rear roof extension, and alterations to front roof extension with additional rooflight

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 April 2019 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/19/3223828 11 Devonshire Gardens, Chiswick, London W4 3TN • 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 and Mrs S and C Parfitt against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref 00352/11/P4, dated 11 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 February 2019. • The development proposed is the erection of a side roof extension, alterations to existing rear roof extension, and alterations to front roof extension with additional rooflight. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a side roof extension, alterations to existing rear roof extension, and alterations to front roof extension with additional rooflight at 11 Devonshire Gardens, Chiswick, London W4 3TN in accordance with the terms of the application, 00352/11/P4, dated 11 December 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: Drg Nos 18/204 GA.BP, 18/204 GA.LP, 18/204 GA.01, 18/204 GA.02, 18/204 GA.03, 18/204 GA.04, 18/204 GA.05, 18/204 GA.06, 18/204 GA.07 REV A, 18/204 GA.08A, 18/204 GA.09A, 18/204 GA.10A, 18/204 GA.11A, 18/204 GA.12A, 18/204 GA.13A, 18/204 GA.14, and 18/204 GA.15. 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. 4) The dormer window to the flank elevation shall be fitted with obscured glazing, and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/19/3223828 2 Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Grove Park Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey, dwelling within a residential suburb and the Grove Park Conservation Area, an estate of Victorian housing that derives much of its charm from the character of the buildings being reflective of the more affluent properties of their time, and from the tree lined avenues within which they sit. No 11 is one half of a semi-detached pair, both of which have been modified to the front with dormer extensions that are almost mirror images of each other. The street scene is mixed in terms of its architecture, although there are repeat designs to some properties. Various alterations are evident to the original form of several dwellings, including at roof level. Despite these, the area retains much of its appealing qualities. 4. The proposal would include changes to the window pattern to the front dormer, and to an existing rear dormer, as well as the insertion of a small rooflight to the front elevation. The existing fenestration to both dormer windows is out-of- step with the style of glazing used throughout the remainder of the property. There is an obvious mismatch that would be remedied by the proposed changes. The single new rooflight would be inconspicuous and consistent with many others in the area, and of the ‘conservation-style’ that is encouraged by the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2013 within conservation areas. 5. For side dormers within conservation areas the SPD advises that they will only be acceptable where they would respect the profile of the original hipped roof, are small and in keeping with the style of the building. 6. In this instance the dormer would be noticeably recessed behind the front of the property such that its presence would not be obvious from all aspects within the street scene. Given this, and the wide proportions of Nos 11 and 13 as a semi- detached pair, I disagree with the Council’s view that there would be a harmful disruption to the symmetry of the building. There would be little, if any, opportunity for the full elevation of Nos 11 and 13 to be seen from a single vantage point where the imbalance would be detected. 7. The dormer would be set down from the ridge, up from the eaves, and in from the front and rear elevations of the building. Its hipped roof form would complement the style of the existing building and would mimic many similar dormers in both appearance and size that exist in the area, including others on similar style properties within the conservation area that have been permitted by the Council over the years. Most notably a number along Hartington Road where the changes had not, in my assessment, diminished the architectural quality or special character of the area. Although the dormer would be off- centre in the side elevation, and uneven in its appearance, this would not be discernible from Devonshire Gardens due to its recessed position and the screening offered by the scale and proximity of No 9. From the public domain the dormer would appear as a well-balanced and sympathetic addition. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/19/3223828 3 Conditions 8. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. In the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area a condition is necessary to control the external materials that would be used. The Council has suggested a condition that would require the glazing in the new side dormer to be obscurely glazed. This is reasonable in order to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, although I see no reason why the windows should be hinged to only open inwards, as was suggested. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Grove Park Conservation Area. I have found no conflict with Policies CC1, CC2, CC4 or SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015 insofar as they require new development to display a high quality of design that maintains and respects the character and context of an area and that conserves heritage assets. Accordingly, in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR