Appeal 3293418

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit the appeal site was enclosed at the front by tall wooden panels and work to the property appeared to have commenced. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that I was able to consider all of the potential effects of the proposal and I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

Having regard to the submitted evidence and my observations on site, I have taken the appellant’s reference to [address]/[address] in their grounds of appeal to be the property adjacent to No [address] which is named ‘Lyndhurst’.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of No [site address] and the Hillside, Northwood Hills Area of Special Local Character.

No [site address] (No 4) is a fairly modest, detached bungalow, which dates from circa 1940s. It is constructed of brick with a part painted render finish and has a tiled roof. The original property has been altered in the past, including the addition of a single-storey garage at the side, a single storey extension at the rear and a small front dormer window. Nevertheless, key architectural elements, such as the front projecting gable and pyramidal shaped roof, survive and are legible within the street scene.

The property is located within the Hillside, Northwood Hills Area of Special Local Character (the ASLC). The ASLC is a non-designated local heritage asset that has a character and identity which local residents value and the Council wishes to preserve or enhance1. The special quality of the ASLC and thus its significance as a non-designated heritage asset, mainly stem from the regular pattern and largely harmonious form, design and materials of the area’s residential dwellings, which pleasingly accommodate the steeply sloping land of the locale. Whilst it is apparent that a number of individual properties in the area have been altered and/or extended, these changes have not undermined the townscape value of the ASLC as a whole.

No 4 displays key characteristics of the built form and pattern of development which are typical of the area. As such, it positively contributes to the townscape merit and significance of the ASLC.

The proposal would maintain the height and pitch of the appeal property’s existing roof. However, it would convert the roof’s distinctive pyramidal shape to a large deep crown form, detrimentally altering a characteristic architectural element of the building. Moreover, it would appreciably increase the bulk and massing of the roof at the rear, transforming the existing property’s modest form and scale to a harmful degree. In these respects, the proposal would not be subservient to or respect the architectural style of the original building.

In adversely altering the characteristic form and design of a property which positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area, it logically follows that the proposal would undermine the special quality of the ASLC. In doing so, it would harm the significance of this non-designated heritage asset.

Given the topography of the area, I am not persuaded that the proposal and its harmful effects on the property and the ASLC would be sufficiently screened and/or mitigated by the property of No [address]. Rather, they would be unduly conspicuous and readily perceived when viewed from adjacent public routes.

In undertaking a ‘balanced judgement’2, whilst the proposal would create additional accommodation within the property, this is not sufficient to justify or outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the ASLC.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of No [site address] and the Hillside, Northwood Hills Area of Special Local Character. As such, it would be contrary to Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1- [name], 2012; and [name] 1, DMHB 5 and DMHB 11 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2- Development Management Policies, 2020. Together and amongst other things, these policies require new development to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment; be subservient to and respect the architectural style and design of the original house; ensure that there is no adverse cumulative impact of the proposal on the character, appearance or quality of the existing street or wider area; and be designed to the highest standards, incorporating principles of good design. It would also not accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to achieve well-designed places. 1 Supporting text to Policy DMHB 5 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2- Development Management Policies, 2020. 2 Paragraph 203 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In support of the appeal the appellant has drawn my attention to alterations and extensions to other properties in the vicinity of No 4, namely ‘Lyndhurst’; No [address], allowed at appeal in 20173; No [address], granted by the Council in 2005; and No [address], granted by the Council in 2009.

I viewed these properties when on site. However, I do not have the full details of the appeal and applications, or the circumstances that led to those developments being accepted. Moreover, I note that the character and appearance of No [address] or the area are not cited by the appellant in relation to the appeal; and that the developments at No [address] and No [address] were granted under a previous development plan. As such, I am unable to draw any meaningful comparisons and they attract little weight in favour of the appeal.

In any event, the fact that apparently similar alterations and/or extensions exist is not, in itself, a reason to allow unacceptable development. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own planning merits and the specific context of the appeal site and found that it would cause harm as outlined above.

The appellant refers to a ‘fall-back position’ of a ‘lawful development certificate for a rear gable and two large side dormer’ which, they consider, would be more obtrusive within the street scene. It is not clear whether the appellant has applied for and/or obtained such a certificate. Even if the appellant is correct in their assertion on this matter, in the absence of any details of such a proposal, I cannot evaluate its effects in comparison to the appeal proposal before me. Moreover, there is no evidence that there is any greater than a theoretical possibility that such a development might take place or that it would be a realistic alternative to the appeal development. This severely limits the weight I can attach to this matter as a fall-back position.

The proposal would be contrary to the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.