Appeal 3285199

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Part retrospective / part proposed erection of single storey side extension and extension of existing boundary fence at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 51798/APP/2021/1795, dated 4 May 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] 01, P 02, [name] 03, Elevations & [name] 04, Comparative views P 05.

The material to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing house.

A side extension has been erected at the site. The proposal before me seeks an alternative design to the development that has been erected on site. Nevertheless, I have assessed the proposal based on the proposed plans before me.

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

The appeal site forms part of a planned housing estate consisting of modern, link-detached, semi-detached and short terraces of houses. The houses broadly follow similar characteristics of red brick finishes, staggered building lines set in a predominantly open plan estate.

The appeal property is a corner house located on [address] and [address], the main road through the estate with spurs off it. The extension would be positioned close to the corner with the two roads.

The spur road of [address] may be limited in width as an estate spur road, although there is a footpath that runs along the western side of the Close into it. Combined with the location of houses and their set back behind and orientation, as well as the set back of the houses on the eastern side, and the open plan nature of the estate, creates a sense of openness to the housing estate. In addition, the proposal would be flat roofed and substantially screened by the proposed fencing. Its limited scale and massing would be in proportion to the host dwelling. The extension is low level and the finished facing materials of the extension appear as an acceptable match to the host dwelling.

There are high solid walls located at the back on the pavement within the estate in prominent locations, as well as high close boarded timber fences that abut the pack of the footway.

The proposed fence would return towards the projecting porch, but would not come forward of this element. It would not look out of character in this position in an estate where this type of enclosure is visibly present. Whilst some soft landscaping has been removed as a result of the proposal, I could see that other corners contain no landscaping features and boundary treatments. The extent of lost landscaping would not be detrimental to the local area.

All things considered, I have found that the proposal would result in no visual intrusion to the local area. Therefore, to conclude, the proposal would not adversely harm the character or appearance of the street scene and accords with the broad design aims of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] (2012) and [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies 2020 in their combined design aims.

I have considered the suggested conditions in light of the Planning Practice Guidance and Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework. A condition relating to the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty, and a condition in relation to materials is reasonable in order to protect the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should succeed.