Appeal 3277116

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension following the demolition of existing conservatory at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application Ref 01331/23/P8, dated 2 February 2021 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]. MF/5/A/2 S.III, MF/5/A/2 S.IV, MF/5/A/2 S.V, MF/5/A/2 S.VI.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

All trees to be retained within the appeal site shall be protected by strong fencing, the location and type to be previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be erected in accordance with the approved details before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed within any fenced area, and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

In the interest of accuracy, the description of development used in the header above is based on that used on the Council’s decision notice.

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

The appeal site comprises a detached property situated on a corner plot on the eastern side of [address], a cul-de-sac within an established residential area. The existing dwelling sits within a relatively large square-shaped plot and features a hipped roof, a pair of dormer windows on both the front and rear roof planes and a flat-roofed single-storey extension to its southern flank elevation. There is also a haphazard lean-to structure abutting a part of the northern flank side elevation. On my site visit, I observed that this structure seemed in disrepair and had partially collapsed, damaging the boundary fence.

The proposed extension would harmonise with the architectural profile of the host dwelling as it would appear sufficiently subordinate given its single-storey height and would feature materials that would match the existing building. I do not find that it would appear excessively large as it would only have a width of approximately 2.4-2.6 metres and a rear depth of 3.6 metres. As such, it would appear as a simple and modest addition to the dwelling.

The Council contend that the development would detract from the character of the streetscene. However, I find that the simple innocuous design and discreet single-storey profile of the development would not dominate [address] or be visually intrusive so as to adversely impact the surrounding context. Whilst the development would be visible to a section of the surrounding properties on [address], I am satisfied it would adequately tie-in with the host dwelling and not constitute an incongruous addition to the streetscene. In fact, I find the proposed extension would visually enhance this part of the road as it would remove the partially collapsed lean-to structure and damaged boundary fence.

Furthermore, [address] is a quiet cul-de-sac and although the appeal site is a corner plot it is not particularly prominent. The hedging around the front of the site and mature trees along the southern boundary and in the north-western corner of the plot would also help to screen some views of the proposed extensions.

Given the above, I therefore find the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and streetscene. I therefore consider that the proposed development would not conflict with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan - [name] (2015-2030) (adopted 2015) which together seek to ensure proposals are well-designed and respect local context.

Whilst there is a degree of conflict with Section 4.4 of the ‘Residential Extension Guidelines’ Supplementary Planning Document (2017) which states that wrap around extensions to properties on corner plots will be refused, in this instance, I have found the development would not appear excessively prominent or adversely dominate the streetscene.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions that it would wish to see imposed in the event that the appeal was successful. I have considered the suggested conditions against the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty. I have also included the Council’s suggested condition requiring the external materials match the existing building, in order to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

Whilst not suggested between the parties, I consider that a condition is necessary to ensure tree protection measures are agreed and installed prior to construction works commencing and that they should be retained throughout the duration of the construction phase to protect at least the north-westernmost tree which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. This condition requires action prior to the commencement of works and has consequently been agreed with the appellant.

The proposal would not conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.