Appeal 3286342

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension; in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 01075/2A/P4, dated 18 June 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings listed below: • [name] and Elevations, [name]. P1220-03, [name] 2021

The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

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.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • The character and appearance of the host building, including the surrounding locality; and • The living conditions of current and future neighbouring occupiers of No.[address] as a result of sense of enclosure.

The appeal site is located along the southern side of [address] where there is a curve in the road leading to [address]. The appeal site is one of a group of 5 two storey terraced dwellings which date from the late twentieth century and are constructed in line with the curve in the road. Each of the five terraced dwellings are placed diagonally to the road with each Appeal Decision: APP/F5540/D/21/3286342 terraced dwelling positioned behind the adjoining terraced dwelling giving a zig-zag or stepped type of layout to the positioning of the dwellings in plan form. Each of the dwellings in this group appears to have a similar form, design and proportions with the zig-zag stepped arrangement also applying to the rear.

The group of terraced dwellings are unlike anything in the locality with the dwellings taking on a modern form and appearance with a cream brick and groups of four long slender windows to the front of each of the dwellings with an under-croft single garage. The remaining street scene is quite varied with a garage site opposite, and a four storey apartment block which dates from the mid 20th Century. Further along [address] where it turns into a one-way street, the dwellings form traditional Victorian terraces with yellow London stock brick, stone surrounds and small canted bay windows and small front gardens. Further along [address] there is a mix of inter-war housing along with Victorian and Edwardian terraces which have a more traditional relationship with the street than the appeal site. That said, the character of the surrounding locality is quite varied in terms of designs and materials, where infill development is ‘honest’ in its approach and does not seek to replicate or distract from positive elements of the street scene such as vegetated front gardens, street trees and gaps in and around dwellings.

The London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan (LP) Policies CC1 and CC2 are design led policies which seek to achieve high quality design for new development which reflects the existing character and context of the locality. LP Policy SC7 is specific to residential extensions and seeks that extensions do not harm existing character and appearance and also seeks that the Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document 2017 (SPD) is taken into account in planning determinations. The SPD contains further specific guidance in relation to design principles and detailed design considerations that for rear extensions places an emphasis on subservience and responding to the existing site and context of the locality.

The proposed extension would be as deep as the two storey component of the neighbouring dwelling at No.2B and would be single storey with a flat roof and constructed of materials which would match the existing dwelling. The Council’s main concerns noted in the [name] relate to ‘visual harm’ as a result of the projection of the extension past No.[address] and that there are no full width extensions to any of the other terraced dwellings. The assessment of appropriateness as per LP Policy CC1, CC2, SC7 and the SPD deals with elements such as proportions, massing, subservience etc, rather than the number of extensions on surrounding properties which does not preclude the ability to erect full width extensions.

The design of these particular dwellings with the stepped form is one of the more characteristic elements which would not be eroded by the proposed scheme. The single storey and flat rooved nature of the proposed extension would be sufficiently subservient to the host building and does not project past the rear wall of the neighbouring No.2B, maintaining the stepped in appearance. Whilst the proposal would increase the stepped-in nature from No.[address], this would not be of a significant diversion from the overall character and appearance of these particular dwellings or the character and appearance of the greater locality which contains a variance in building forms. Appeal Decision: APP/F5540/D/21/3286342

In conclusion of this matter, the proposed extension is sufficiently subservient to the host building and is of a design and appearance which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host building and the greater locality. Consequently, the proposed scheme is made in accordance with [name] CC1, CC2, SC7 and the SPD as described previously. Living Conditions of No.[address]

No.[address] is the direct neighbour to the appeal site lies at the end of the group of 5 terraced dwellings and contains the longest garden of the terraces. To the east of No.2 is a pedestrian accessway and a detached two storey dwelling that is setback from the boundary with No.2. There is a small paved area next to the two storey wall of the appeal site that is utilised for more formal sitting with the remainder of the garden area of No.2 laid to lawn.

I appreciate that the SPD specifies recommended distances of rear extensions of 3.05 metres, however this guidance would appear to apply to ‘common situations’ rather than the stepped approach as part of this proposal. I agree with the Council that there would be an increase in the sense of enclosure and slight loss of outlook from the increased height of the brick wall along one side of the boundary, however I am not convinced that the increased height and length of the wall along the boundary would be unacceptable. There remains a long garden with No.2 not being enclosed on the opposite side boundary and a sufficiently long and wide garden to reduce any perceived sense of enclosure, loss of outlook or ‘tunnelling effect’ caused by the proposed extension.

[name] consider there to be some increased enclosure, I am not convinced that the loss would be ‘unacceptable’ as per [name] CC2 and SC7, which are supported by the SPD. Taking the above into account, I disagree that the proposed rear extension would result in unacceptable harm to living conditions as a result of sense of enclosure. Consequently, and in conclusion of this matter, the proposed scheme is made in accordance with [name] CC2 and SC7, which is accompanied by the SPD. I note that LP Policy CC1 has been utilised in the reasons for refusal, which is a design led policy which is not relevant to the consideration of living conditions.

For these reasons, and having considered all matters raised in evidence and from what I saw during my site visit, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions as detailed previously.

The Council in their Appeal Form response detailed that should the appeal be allowed, that conditions regarding time limit, approved plans and materials which match existing be placed on any decision notice. I have considered the conditions as specified in the beginning of this letter in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Conditions 1 and 2 are standard conditions which set the standard time limit and approved plans which are necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have not included existing plans within the approved plans condition as they do not require approval. Condition 3 seeks that the scheme is constructed in matching materials which is necessary as this condition enables the development to fit in with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the locality. Appeal Decision: APP/F5540/D/21/3286342