Appeal 6001923

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has indicated that there is an ongoing Local Plan review. I am not aware of the exact stage it has reached, the extent of unresolved objections or whether the policies concerned will be considered consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Consequently, in accordance with Paragraph 48 of the Framework, I give it limited weight.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the host building and adjacent street tree.

The appeal site comprises the existing terrace to a ground floor flat, located within [address], which is a part, three-storey, part two-storey and part single-storey block containing seven flats. The Pier Trust building, a single storey building, is situated in close proximity to the appeal property with a section of its roof overhanging the existing terrace wall. The existing terrace is enclosed by a 1.8- metre-high brick-built wall, with sections of metal railing enclosing this external amenity space. It forms part of the wider Corney Reach Development, a development predominantly comprising two to five storey blocks of residential apartments, close to the river.

The proposed development comprises the erection of a glazed enclosure, referred to as a ‘winter garden’ which would cover most of the existing private terrace associated with Flat 2. It would be a primarily glazed structure, with a lean-to roof with a maximum height of 2.34 metres.

The appellant states that the existing terrace is a poor-quality amenity space which receives very little sunlight and that the proposed enclosure would enable the space to be utilised all-year round. The appeal documents indicate that the space would be used as a gym. It is accessed from a bedroom.

Policy CC1 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (the HLP) seeks to promote and improve the appreciation of the character and qualities of distinctive areas of the Borough by securing development that sensitively and creatively responds to an area’s character and by refusing poor design. Policy CC2 of the HLP states that the Council will retain, promote and support high quality urban design and architecture to create attractive, distinctive and liveable spaces.

The proposal would be situated on the north-east elevation of the building, facing [name], and would therefore be visible from the public realm. Although the building incorporates private amenity spaces, none of the existing units have winter gardens, or similar enclosed structures. Whilst the proposed development would not involve alterations to the existing wall, including its height. It would be taller than the existing wall and as a consequence, visible from the public areas of the [name] development. Even with the lightweight structure, and ratio of glazing, it would not by virtue of its design and appearance harmonise with the host building.

[name] note the presence of projecting bay windows on the southern elevation and a single rear terrace with an obscured balustrade, these elements are not the same as the enclosure which is being proposed. The evidence before me does not demonstrate that the development would be a minor change to the existing building, which would preserve the appearance of the host building or avoid visual harm. The block itself forms part of a residential estate characterised by a broadly consistent and uniform design approach. The proposed addition would disrupt this uniformity and would result in an alteration that would appear out of keeping with both the host building and the wider [name].

I accept that the presence of the Pier Trust building and that the adjacent tree would to a certain extent limit views of the proposed development. However, the proposed development would nevertheless cause harm to the overall design and appearance of the host building and not respond sensitively to the area’s character. For these reasons, the proposed development would appear incongruous when read against the established form and detailing of the host building, and it would not integrate well with the original architectural composition.

In respect of the effect of the proposed development on the adjacent tree, Policy CC1 of the HLP expects that development proposals conserve and take opportunities to enhance particular facilities or qualities that contribute to an area, e.g. mature trees.

The Council’s Officer Report states that had they found the proposal to be acceptable, an Aboricultural Assessment which would include any necessary mitigation measures would be required. However, no additional information has been submitted with the appeal. The appellant states that the tree will remain wholly external to the proposed development and that no ground works are required which would affect the tree’s roots or trunk. They further state that no additional information was requested by the Council during determination of the application.

Based on my own observations and the evidence before me, the canopy of the adjacent street tree clearly extends over the terrace wall and into the space proposed to be enclosed. Even if below‐ground works are not required, the siting of a predominantly glazed structure in the immediate vicinity of the canopy could result in conflict between glazing/roof elements and overhanging branches requiring pruning, pressure for crown reduction, or even removal of the tree. Therefore, in the absence of any detailed assessment, I cannot be satisfied that the development could be carried out without causing unacceptable harm.

The appellant has suggested that a planning condition could be imposed to ensure any harm to the tree is mitigated. However, without any substantive information in relation to whether the proposed development would cause harm to the adjacent tree I cannot be certain what if, any mitigation measures would be suitable. Therefore, I do not find that this could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of a planning condition. For these reasons, I therefore find that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the existing tree and therefore its positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Consequently, I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the host building and adjacent street tree. Thus, it would be contrary to Policies CC1 CC2 and GB7 of the HLP which require amongst other things, development proposals to be of a high-quality design which makes a positive contribution to the character of the borough’s places, conserves its special qualities and heritage and protects existing trees of value.

The Council’s reason for refusal also relates to Policy CC4 of the HLP. However, this policy relates to heritage matters and no heritage assets have been identified within the vicinity of the appeal property. Accordingly, I find no conflict with this policy.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, of sufficient weight which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.