Appeal 3304320

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for first floor and ground floor front extension, ground floor and first floor rear extension, single storey side extension, loft extension at [site address] , Hillingdon, Ickenham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 35699/APP/2022/513 dated 17 February 2022 subject to the following conditions:

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: P-001, P-002 & P-003 F.

The trees shown on the proposed plan and any trees whose canopies overhang the 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/s, and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows within the side elevations have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the windows are installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The description of the proposal has altered from the application form to the decision notice. That on the application form is sufficient to describe the proposals.

The main issue is the effect of the rear extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a residential dwelling set amongst an area of generally detached dwellings of varied design, form, scale, and materials. The existing dwelling does not appear to be of any special architectural merit or interest.

The rear extension would incorporate a gabled roof form that is already familiar to the dwelling. Regardless of the inclusion of accommodation over three floors, its ridgeline would be minimally set below that on the main dwelling and it would not excessively obscure the rear elevation of the dwelling. This would also serve to limit the bulk of the extension. Being set to the rear with properties reasonably close on both sides, the public visibility of the extension from the street would be very limited.

The extension would therefore form an appropriately designed addition which would not be of excessive scale nor bulk. Consequently, there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling nor area.

There would subsequently be no conflict with Policy BE1 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) and policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021). Amongst other things these policies require high quality design which is appropriate to the character of an area.

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.

Further, a condition requiring protective tree fencing is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Details of obscure glazing to the side windows are necessary in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

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.