Appeal 3358043

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] (No 107) is a semi-detached dwelling located on a corner plot where [address] intersects with [address]. The properties within the surrounding area are predominantly semi-detached and there is often much symmetry between pairs. There is variation in design in the area including in terms of materials and in some cases where dwellings have been extended. Indeed, the existing side extension at No 107 introduces some imbalance relative to its adjoining counterpart at [address] (No 105). Nevertheless, although the host dwelling projects forward of the return building line on [address], its setback from the side boundary prevents the built form from appearing overly dominant. This maintains a suitably spacious character at the corner, which positively contributes to the street scene.

The proposal would conflict with several specific requirements of Policy DMHD 1 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) (DMP). Firstly, the cumulative extensions would substantially exceed half the width of the original dwelling. Due to the extension’s two-storey scale and even with the use of matching materials and the replication of the fenestration pattern, this would give the host dwelling a markedly elongated appearance, emphasising the disparity in width between the host dwelling and its counterpart at No 105. This would be further exacerbated by the absence of a reduction in ridge height or, as required by DMHD 1, a set back from the main front elevation.

Furthermore, the extension would significantly exceed the return building line on [address] and, even accounting for the tapered alignment of the side boundary, would only incorporate a narrow gap to the boundary. This would unacceptably diminish the sense of openness at the corner, appearing unduly dominant and cramped, compounding the conflict with the requirements of Policy DMHD 1.

I accept that whether or not an extension should appear subordinate is typically assessed against the site-specific context in any particular case. However, the side extension at [address], whilst adjacent to the boundary with [address], is single storey. This means that it does not have a dominant a presence on the corner and so is not comparable to the two-storey appeal proposal. The locations of the side extensions in Figure 3 within the appellant’s statement are unclear. Moreover, the examples provided are limited in number and do not indicate that elongated two-storey extensions, positioned close to the side boundaries of corner plots, form part of the prevailing character in the vicinity of the appeal site.

I conclude, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policies D3 and D4 of The London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (2012), and [name] 11 and DMHD 1 of the DMP which seek high quality design, require that the form and layout of a development enhance and harmonise with local context, that there is no adverse cumulative impact of development proposals on the character, appearance or quality of the existing street or wider area and set out specific requirements in terms of two-storey side extensions, including in respect of dwellings on corner plots.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.