Appeal 3302483

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for first floor rear extension and chimney stack on the rear roof at [site address] , Hillingdon, Uxbridge [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 70625/APP/2022/1326 dated 22 April 2022 subject to the following

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

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan A549-SK1, A549-P-01-rev A & A549-P-02-rev A.

The first main issue is the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] (No.87) and No. [address] (No.88) with particular regard to light, outlook, overshadowing, overlooking, overdominance and overbearing effect.

The appeal dwelling is a modern terraced property of two storey design to the front and three storey design to the rear where the [name] flows on a north-east, south-west axis.

The extension would be placed solely above an existing rear extension and would be the same width and depth as this earlier addition. It would incorporate the same hipped roof form, the ridgeline of which would terminate well below that on the main dwelling.

The extension would therefore be entirely in keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling. It would remain subordinate and would not result in overdevelopment of the site. There would be no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

There would subsequently be no conflict with Policy BE 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 [name] (2012), policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) (DMP) and policies D3 and D8 of the London Plan (2021). Amongst other things these policies require high quality design which is appropriate to the character of an area.

The extension would only occupy approximately half of the rear elevation of the dwelling. It would be built on the other side of the elevation to No.87 which sits to the north-east, well away from the windows of this neighbouring property.

While acknowledging its lesser height, there would be a reasonable degree of space between the extension and No.88 to the southwest as a result of the intervening passageway between that dwelling and the side elevation of the host dwelling. Further, No. 88 is set further back than the host dwelling which would serve to limit the impact of the extension.

For the above reasons, the extension would not be likely to result in any significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties at No.87 and No.88 with regard to light, outlook, overshadowing, overlooking, overdominance and overbearing effect.

There would not therefore be conflict with [name] 11 and DMHD 1 of the DMP which amongst other things require that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and that extensions will be required to ensure that there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers.

The Council have raised no concern with regard to the chimney stack, which would be a modest feature and I have no reason to disagree. There is no evidence to indicate that the extension would have any significant detrimental impact on the enjoyment of outdoor areas of nearby properties especially when considering the existing extension at the site and existing context.

Construction disturbance is an inevitable impact of any development and I cannot afford any significant weight to this matter.

Planning permission is granted subject to the standard three-year time limit. A condition requiring matching materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. It is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

There is nothing to indicate that the decision should me made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan and I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.