Appeal 3317666

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of rear part first floor extension at [site address] , Hillingdon, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 39987/APP/2022/1052, dated 29 March 2022 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A/626/03-2, A/626/04-2, LP/10/01, A/626/01-2 [name], A/626/05-2 [name] and A/626/02-2 [name].

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

I consider that the main issue in this case is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two storey detached house in an established residential area which is within the [site address] Green Conservation Area. At the front it has bow windows at ground and first floor level under a gabled roof together with a catslide roof from the main ridge to eaves above the ground floor across approximately half the width. Several other properties along the street have the same pattern and there are variations on this architectural style in the surrounding area with a range of brick and render, roof forms, bow windows and gables. The houses are a mix of detached and semi detached set well back from the road in spacious plots with mature landscaping and long rear gardens, especially on this side of the road.

There is a statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. The National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework) states that in the consideration of development proposals great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets in accordance with the significance of the asset and any harm should require clear and convincing justification.

The relevant policies in this case include policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (November 2012) and policies DMHB 4, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) which relate to the design of development. Policy DMHD 1 sets out detailed criteria for residential extensions and DMBH 4 relates to development including extensions in conservation areas.

The proposed first floor extension would be constructed over part of an existing full width ground floor rear extension. It would project approximately 2.9m beyond an existing first floor element which has a sloping roof which appears to be part of the original design of the building as it is similar to other, apparently unaltered houses along the street.

I consider that it would not appear out of scale with the original building. It would be approximately two thirds the width of the house with a gable end pitched roof at a similar height to the existing main ridge. The design is fairly simple and would integrate well with the existing appearance of the rear of the property. The side elevation would be visible from near views from the street as an extension in matching materials to the first floor flank wall but would have no significant or adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. The rear garden is long, with a variety of fairly dense vegetation obscuring views of the rear of the house from the public open space beyond.

The Council has not put forward any Conservation Area Appraisal for the area to indicate the essential elements of the conservation area which contribute to its significance. It appears to me to be a form of ‘Metroland’ style development where the character is defined by the spacious landscaped layout of houses and a mix of architectural forms and detailing which together form a distinctive identifiable style typical of the period of construction and repeated along the street frontage. In this context I consider that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The Council has drawn my attention to two nearby properties with two storey rear extensions. They appear to have been slightly different originally in form and layout from the appeal property and one also has a large and prominent flat roofed extension at the front. In my view, the construction of the extensions as seen from the rear has resulted in a rather awkward roof form which does not appear well integrated into the overall form of the host building.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the house itself or the conservation area and that it is consistent with policies BE 1, DMBH 4, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1.

Neighbouring residents have raised concerns regarding loss of light to their properties. While loss of daylight or sunlight is a material planning consideration, the right to light in itself is not. I consider that the existing juxtaposition of the houses, together with the extensions and outbuildings at each gives rise to some degree of diminished outlook and light to the side windows, and that the proposal would not result in a significant additional impact on outlook and loss of daylight or sunlight compared with the existing circumstances.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council, having regard to the tests set out in the Framework. A condition detailing the plans is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and for the avoidance of doubt. A condition relating to the materials is necessary in order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.