Appeal 6002558

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for the construction of a detached building at the site was approved at appeal1. The appellant seeks to vary the approved plans number 2 of this extant permission through a section 73 application to change the footprint of the building and alter the approved roof configuration and insert roof lights. No works have commenced on site to erect the outbuilding.

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

There is a rear unmade lane to the back of the appeal site. This is shared with properties along [address] where the rear gardens of a number of houses along both [address] and [address] contain rear outbuildings within gardens facing one another.

The outbuildings at the rear of houses along [address] are generally consistent in their size with a continuous building line with most gardens containing an outbuilding with a low apex roof. To the other side to the rear of [address], many outbuildings are low level and fill the width of the plot, are flat roofed or built with a sloping roof. 1 Appal reference APP/F5540/D/24/3356538

Adjacent to the appeal site within the rear garden of number [address], there is an outbuilding considerably larger in scale than the extant permission as well as others seen within back gardens, and this was noted by the previous Inspector. The roof formation of this adjacent outbuilding has a low apex roof therefore reducing its bulk and scale.

The extant permission would follow the characteristic shape of these outbuilding roofs, and the Inspector at the time agreed its overall design, proportions and finish would not appear as a visually obtrusive feature in this location, and follows the

The roof configuration of the proposal before me would be materially different than the extant permission. In this location where all roof profiles are modest in height or flat roofed, the apex design with the ridgeline running vertically from the front of the roof to the rear resulting in a peaked gable end with the increased brickwork to the front elevation would add considerable bulk and mass to the outbuilding. It would no longer appear ‘low profile’ in the words of the previous Inspector.

Although it would not be visible from [address], and the footprint may be largely commensurate with the adjacent outbuilding, it would be viewed in context with rear outbuildings. Its overall scale and mass attributed to the roof design would be out of character in this context and visually over dominant when viewed in this environment. Furthermore, its characteristics would take on the appearance beyond what I consider to be a secondary outbuilding and would therefore not be subordinate to the existing building that is a requirement of the residential extensions aims of policy SC7 of the local plan.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, the proposal would conflict with the character and context aims of policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 and the [name], Sustainability and Design Code Supplementary Planning Document.

I have considered all matters that have been raised and conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which lead me to determine the appeal otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.