Appeal 3264256

The appeal is dismissed.

The new London Plan (2021)(LP) has been published since the appeal was made. I shall consider the appeal accordingly. In doing so I am satisfied that no injustice will be caused since the relevant policies which seek to deliver good design are essentially the same as in the previous plan.

On my site visit I observed the trees which would need to be felled in order to accommodate the proposed development have been removed, but that peripheral shrubs remain. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The area is characterised by large detached properties within substantial plots, with good size frontages and largely undeveloped rear gardens. Whilst the scale of the proposed dwelling would be in-keeping with other homes in the area, the plot would be substantially smaller than other properties, with a relatively shallow frontage and limited rear garden area. I recognise that the level of proposed private garden space could secure adequate living conditions for future residents. However, a garden of this size would not be consistent with other properties in this area. [name] accept that the appeal dwelling would be set away from existing properties, given the limited size of the proposed plot, the proposal would lead to a cramped form of development which would not reflect the existing development pattern.

The proposed dwelling would be accessed off and front onto [address], which runs along the side of the garden of the appeal property. This side of [address] is made up of the side boundaries of the appeal dwelling and the property to the rear, No [address]. [name] note the appellant’s view that the proposal could form a bookend for [address] when viewed in conjunction with No 1A, the introduction of a lone dwelling in this location would interrupt and be at odds with the existing street pattern. This would cause unacceptable harm to the street scene.

A similar dwelling has been constructed on the opposite side of [address] in recent years (No 1A). I acknowledge the similarities between that property and the current proposal, in terms of design, scale, the fact that it sits in land which previously formed part of the rear garden of a property on Moor Park Road and that it also has a smaller curtilage than other properties in the area. However, that property sits comfortably within the street scene as it is located at the end of an existing row of dwellings. Therefore, No 1A properly responds to its context and the existing street pattern. On that basis, it is not comparable to the proposal before me. I therefore attach limited weight to this matter in making my decision.

I note that the original submission indicated that a number of trees and shrubs would be removed in order to accommodate the development and that the appellant’s landscaping scheme proposes mitigation planting. Given that the trees on site have now been removed, the loss of the remaining peripheral shrubs and vegetation on their own would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area.

In conclusion, whilst I have found the removal of the remaining vegetation on the appeal site to be acceptable, this would not outweigh the overall harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] – [name] (2012) (HLP1SP), Policies DMH6, DMHB11 and DMHB12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] – Development Management Policies (2020) (HLP2DMP), [name] D1A and D3 and Paragraphs 122 and 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’), which seek amongst other things to seek to secure good quality development which maintains existing character and responds to local context, in terms of design, scale, building plot sizes, street patterns, streetscape rhythm and landscaping.

I have considered the information submitted by the appellant in respect of planning consents for dwellings in rear gardens on [address]. It seems that this area is different in character to the appeal site area in that it includes a higher density of development, with properties and their gardens being generally smaller than in the appeal area. The site circumstances of these developments also vary from the appeal proposal. The bungalow approved to the rear of Nos 37 - 41 Hallowell Road1 is significantly smaller than the appeal dwelling and also in comparison to the original properties and is not visible 1 [name]/R5510/W/17/3183319 2 [name]/R5510/W/16/3152126 within the street scene of [address]. Also, the property approved to the rear of Nos 115 - 117 Hallowell Road2 would be viewed in the context of nearby properties on the same side [address], so reflects the development pattern of that area. Notwithstanding this, each proposal must be considered on its own merit. Therefore, I attach limited weight to these examples in making my decision.

In reaching my decision, I have also considered a number of matters raised by the appellant in support of the appeal. I acknowledge that paragraph 122 of the Framework promotes the efficient use of land, however the benefits of securing one additional dwelling would only carry moderate weight. I acknowledge the positive aspects of the scheme, including that the property would provide meet highways requirements, would exceed minimum space standards, that this would be an accessible home and it would not harm the living conditions of existing residents. However, none of these matters would outweigh the harm and conflict with the development plan that I have described.

Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.