Appeal 3320411

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a double storey side extension and single storey front extension at [site address] , Uxbridge [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 62851/APP/2022/3823, dated 16 December 2022, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan, 21/3444/01A; Site Plan, 21/3444/02A; [name], 21/3444/06A and [name], 21/3444/05A.

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 wholly in accordance with the [name] dated December 2022 set out in the submitted BS5837 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] and shall include site supervision in accordance with paragraph 5.4.6 of the statement and the associated appendices.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development does not comprise changes to the existing materials. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall [name] is reflected in my decision above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and area.

The appeal property is located at the end of The Mallows, a cul-de-sac formed by two storey detached dwellings with a similar design and deep frontages. A common feature in these dwellings, as well as in those in [address], is their forward projecting integral garage beside an enclosed porch with flat roof.

The proposed extension would form a continuation of the existing flat roofed projection, extending across the remainder width of the host dwelling in matching materials. Given its limited size and single storey height the proposal would form a proportionate addition to the host dwelling. The design and position of the door and window would relate well to the other openings in the dwelling and result in a visually balanced front elevation. Consequently, the proposal would respect the character of the host dwelling.

The proposal would not project beyond the prevailing building line, which would limit its prominence in the street scene. Further, during my site visit I observed that several nearby properties in the vicinity benefit from similar partial flat roofed extensions on their front elevations. I accept that many of these other extensions retain a recessed porch. Nevertheless, in these cases the flat roof oversails the full width of the host dwelling, which is not dissimilar to the proposed extension. As such, the proposal would successfully integrate into its surrounding context and would not appear dominant or intrusive within the street scene.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 – [name] 2012 (SP) and [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies 2010. Collectively, these policies seek to achieve good quality design and layout amongst other things.

The Council’s reason for refusal quotes Policy HE1 of the SP. This policy concerns built heritage and my attention has been drawn to the Ickenham Village Conservation Area (CA). The plan before me shows that the site is located outside the CA. The Council has not set out any reasons to justify the proposal’s harm to the CA. Nevertheless, based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the proposal would be acceptable in this regard.

A condition is necessary to require the development to accord with the approved plans, as this provides certainty and precision. A condition securing matching materials is also necessary, to ensure that the development is in keeping with the existing dwelling and its surroundings. In the interests of protecting retained trees of amenity value a condition is required to ensure that works are undertaken in accordance with the submitted [name].

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal complies with the development plan read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. As such, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.