Planning Committee 31/03/2010 Schedule Item:05

Ref: P/2009/4361

Address: 54 MEADVALE ROAD EALING W5 1NR

Ward: Cleveland

Proposal: Single storey part rear infill extension

Drawing numbers: 54MR/10 rev A and 54MR/11 rev A (all received 02/03/2010)

Type of Application: Full Application

Application Received: 21/12/2009 Revised: 02/03/2010

Report by: Beth Eite

1. Summary of Site and Proposal:

The application site comprises a two storey semi-detached property which has a hipped roof with sproketed eaves which overhang the main walls. The property has a two storey outrigger with a roof pitch that matches the main roof, this outrigger spans the boundary with the adjoining semi-detached house and is shared between the two properties. To the rear of the outrigger of the subject property is a single storey extension. This has a monopitch roof which sits directly below the sill of the first floor window. The brickwork for this extension does not match the original brick on the main house.

The property is located on the northern side of Meadvale Road which backs on to Brentham Sports Ground. To the western side of the property is an attached single storey garage which has a pitch roof. Permission has recently been granted to rebuild this garage with a flat roof up to a height of 2.7m.

The property is situated within the Brentham Garden Estate which is a conservation area covered by an article 4 direction that restricts most types of development and alterations to properties.

Brentham Garden Suburb in Ealing, west London, is no ordinary group of 620 houses. The first garden suburb to be built on 'Co-partnership' principles and an inspiration for the later, larger and more famous Hampstead, it has made a mark on twentieth-century domestic architecture, town planning and social housing out of all proportion to its size. The Labour, Co-operative, Arts and Crafts, and Garden City movements are all part of the Brentham story. The suburb was designed to a plan by the leading garden city architects Barry Parker and Raymond Unwin, with houses, mostly in the Arts and Crafts style, by George Lister Sutcliffe and Frederic Cavendish Pearson. In 1969 Brentham Garden Suburb was designated a conservation area.

Proposal

The application seeks permission to demolish the single storey rear extension and rebuilt it in matching brickwork and to add a second extension to the side return of the property which would extend to the same depth as the existing single storey rear extension.

2. Relevant Planning History

Ref: Date: Proposal: Decision: P/1948/0026 16-12-1948 Additions at rear Granted conditionally Item No: 05

P/1995/0155 19-04/1995 Erection of single storey rear extension to Granted dwellinghouse conditionally P/2009/2137 14-09-2009 Single storey side garage extension Granted (following demolition of existing attached conditionally garage)

3. Details of the Proposal:

The existing single storey rear extension with a mono pitch roof currently extends 1.6m from the rear of the outrigger and is 4m in height to the top of the roof. This would be rebuilt in brickwork to match the existing house and the roof lowered to a maximum of 3.75m.

A single storey extension is proposed to infill the side return of the property. This would be 3.25m in depth and meet with the depth of the existing extension and would be set in from the flank wall of the main house by 0.3m. It would have a pitched roof at the front and side with a small flat roof section. The height would be the same as the re-built extension (a maximum of 3.75m).

A double door is proposed in the rear of the infill extension which would allow access to the garden, this would be made from white painted timber to match the other openings on the house. Windows are proposed in the side elevation of the extension. This would involve the re-use of the window on the original rear elevation and creation of a second matching one adjacent to it.

4. Consultation:

Public Consultation

Neighbour Notification: 5 surrounding residential and commercial occupiers notified. No Initiated on the responses were received 20/01/2010 (expired on 10/02/2010);

Advertised by a site notice on the 29/02/2010 (expired on the 19/02/2010).

External Consultation

Brentham Garden It is difficult to understand why this design received approval in 1995 as Conservation Area other designs of this size on this type of cottage have been refused both Panel before and since.

Size The existing extension is not an original part of the cottage and is a reasonable size for a Brentham addition. This proposed addition makes the extension a full-width design with a 3.25m projection in the new area.

Brentham Design Guide page 8 B.3 EXTENSIONS “will not normally be permitted across the whole width of the building nor to a depth greater than 2.4m)”

Similar houses have been restricted to this recommended size and

Page 2 of 8 Item No: 05

there does not appear to be any reason for treating this house differently. In this case it might be argued that there is further reason for not allowing any extra development across the house, since the attached side garage that now has permission to be rebuilt with a more solid structure covers the whole of the ground floor side elevation. If this proposal is allowed, two thirds of the whole original ground floor elevation will be covered over. The additional buildings will more than double the size of the original ground floor. In the context of a Brentham cottage this is overdevelopment

Design The architectural quality of the rear would be badly compromised by this full-width roof across the middle of the elevation. If a full-width roof is considered, it should be sprocketed to echo the original roof hips above. This would sit better under the main roof, and have a lighter visual impact. It would entail taking off the roof of the existing extension and re-building it to a more suitable sprocketed design. However, if a resident is to be allowed to build an unusually large extension it might be expected that the design standards should be more demanding than those on a small addition as it will have a greater impact on the original house design. As well as sprocketing, the roof should have a deeper overhang. Although this will cover a greater area it has a lighter visual appearance as the eye is carried past the vertical and the extension would appear less block-like. This is why the Brentham architects used this architectural device and it is one of the most admired characteristics of these cottages. However the panel still consider that, although this would improve the design, the combination of these two extensions will result in an oversized addition that would be difficult to explain in relation to other extensions that have been refused. That an extension is built in two halves at different times should not be a reason for allowing an extension to be formed that is bigger than would be allowed if the whole was proposed in one application.

Officer’s response: The permission which was granted in 1995 is considered to be a material planning consideration as there has been no significant change in policy terms in the intervening time. Whilst a new management plan for the estate has been adopted the regulations are very similar those which were expressed in the 1988 Brentham Design Guide.

It is accepted that this proposal is contrary to the management plan and would not normally be supported, however the applicant has agreed to amend the design from that which was previously approved to include a small set back from the flank wall of the main house and a rebuilding of the existing mono pitch extension in brickwork to match the original house and reduce the height of the roof so it is not longer directly below the sill of the first floor window.

Brentham Society 54 Meadvale Road is one of a semi-detached pair of modest Brentham cottages. It already has a rear extension and was recently granted permission to rebuild the attached garage to the side of the house. .

This application for a second rear extension should be refused. The

Page 3 of 8 Item No: 05

Brentham Society minutes of 9th February 1995 note that the plan for the rear extension ‘do not comply with the guidelines’ i.e. the Policy and Design Guide 1988. We are very surprised to discover that it received approval in 1995. That approval has now lapsed and should not be renewed.

The Brentham Conservation Area Policy and Design Guide states that extensions should not cover more than half the width of the house and have a maximum depth of 2.4m. If this extension and that, combined with the attached garage which covers the side, would constitute over development.

If this were granted it would be very unfair to other residents who have not been allowed such large extensions on their house.

If the Council is minded to grant permission, please note that the roof should be sproketed and the overhang on the eaves should be greater than shown with exposed rafters to match those on the main house.

Officer’s response: Each application is assessed on its own merits and whilst it is accepted that other properties on the Brentham Estate have been refused permission for single storey rear extension it is considered that this is an exceptional case. The previous permission for the infill extension is a material planning consideration and the offer of the applicant to rebuild and reduce the height of the existing extension so it better matches the original house should also be taken into account when determining this application.

Adding sproketed eaves to the extension would increase the overall size of the roof and it would then extend beyond the flank wall of the original dwelling. The extension has been set in from the side wall to allow some of the original rear wall to be retained, if the eaves were to overhang this it would reduce the impact of the set in. It is therefore considered appropriate to approve the extension as proposed.

Internal Consultation

Conservation Officer The proposal submission is identical to a now expired planning approval albeit 10 years old. The proposed single storey rear extension creates an infill addition which closes up the plan of the house completely and is detrimental to the plan form of the house and to the pair of houses, also creating what looks like a full width rear extension even though part of the structure is extant.

Proposed rear extension:

The permission expired ten years ago and one could argue that this lapse of time makes an automatic approval of the same proposal somewhat out of date particularly since the UDP was updated in 2004. Furthermore the configuration of the infill addition means that there is a perception of bulk even if the actual extension is not overly large in itself. This type of extension should not be encouraged particularly since it is noted that even the old Brentham Design Guide advises that

Page 4 of 8 Item No: 05

rear extensions should not take up more than half the width of a rear elevation and by virtue of the continuation of the building line of one rear element to the proposed addition the rear elevation would look as if a full width extension had been added.

Therefore it is recommended that the depth of the proposed infill be reduced by about 500-600mm so as to allow for an inset in the plan and therefore a variation of the building line which in turn allows the addition to be seen as a distinct and separate element from the original structure.

Appropriate roof forms are mono-pitch, dual pitch (gabled) or hipped. Materials and styles for any new addition must be the same as those used for the original house. Design must emulate existing so as to replicate the original detailing of window and door joinery and eaves detailing.

Officer’s response: Reducing the depth of the proposed extension by 500 – 600mm would create a disjointed roof which would require a different pitch and height to the existing extension. It is considered that the current proposal represents the best roof form possible given the wrap around nature of the extension. Instead of bringing the extension back by 0.5m it has been set in from the side wall by 0.3m. There was no set in on the drawings approved in 1995 so this is considered an improvement on the previously approved scheme.

The materials and window details are considered to match the original property and a condition is recommended to secure this.

5. Planning Policies:

Unitary Development Plan “Saved” Policies

Policy Summary 4.1 Design of development 4.8 Conservation Areas 5.9 Extensions and alterations to private houses and gardens

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

Brentham Garden Estate conservation area appraisal 2008 Brentham Garden Estate management plan. 2008 Brentham Garden Estate Policy and Design Guidance 1988 SPD 4 Residential Extensions

6. Planning Considerations: The main planning considerations associated with this proposal are the character and appearance of the extension including its impact upon the conservation area and the impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring occupants.

Page 5 of 8 Item No: 05

7. Reasoned Justification/Remarks:

Character and appearance.

The 1988 Brentham Design Guide states that extensions should be “single storey and confined to the rear of the building, they will not normally be permitted across the whole width of the property nor to a depth greater than 2.4m. Normally extensions will be restricted to half the width of the house.”

The 2008 management plan has the following guidance on extensions; “Generally, the Council will refuse applications which seek to add over-large extensions to the backs or sides of the existing buildings, although more modest, well designed extensions may be acceptable in certain circumstances.

The application as proposed is not strictly in accordance with the 1988 guidelines but it is considered that there are special circumstances in this case to allow this extension. An application for a single storey infill extension was approved in 1995 which was based on the same plans as originally submitted for this application. This showed a 3.25m deep extension projecting out from the main part of the building and filling in the side return of the house. At the time this extension was contrary to the guidelines set out in the 1988 design guide and there have been no substantial changes either in policy terms or on site since this decision.

Nevertheless, in light of the objections raised by the Conservation Officer, Brentham Society and the Brentham Conservation Area Advisory Panel, the applicant has agreed to amend the proposal. The changes include the rebuilding of the existing extension in brick to match the main house and reducing the height of the roof so it sits more comfortably underneath the first floor windows. The side of the extension has also be set in 300mm from the main flank wall of the house to enable a slight definition of the extension is comparison to the original building.

The rebuilding of the garage to the side of the house was approved in 2009, this would be higher than the existing garage and the intention is to undertake both the extension works and the reconstruction of the garage at the same time. The increase height of the garage compared to the existing would restrict views from the street to the rear of the property making the proposed extension invisible from the street.

The proposal to rebuild the extension in matching brick and reduce its height is considered to be an improvement and would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. It is acknowledged that the proposed infill extension is contrary to the established guidelines but it would not be visible from any public area and only from the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties.

The materials used for the walls and roof would match the original property and the windows and doors would be made from white painted timber to match others on the house. Overall it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Brentham Conservation Area and given the existence of the previously approved extension it would not be reasonable to withhold permission for this improved scheme.

Impact upon the neighbouring occupants

The adjoining neighbour to the east, no. 56 would benefit from the approval of this planning application as it would reduce the height of the extension located directly adjacent to the boundary line.

The neighbour to the east is approximately 4m away and has a single storey side extension and a rear extension. There are some windows facing towards the garden of the subject property but these are located in the extension and some way into the garden, they also are a secondary window with much

Page 6 of 8 Item No: 05 of the natural light entering the extension through the rear windows. It is not considered that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of the occupants of no. 52.

8. Conclusion:

It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the proposed infill extension on condition that the current extension is demolished and rebuilt in matching brickwork as per the proposed plans. It is considered that this is a reasonable compromise given the situation with the previous permission and with the improvement works being carried out this represents a proposal which would preserve the character and appearance of the Brentham Conservation Area.

9. Recommendation (Planning Permission):

Grant subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant subject to the following conditions Conditions/Reasons:

Time Limit 3 years - Full Permission

1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Development to be carried out in accordance with approved documents

2. The works hereby permitted shall be carried out in their entirety exactly and only in accordance with the drawings, and other particulars, forming part of the Consent, and there shall be no variation therefrom without the prior written confirmation of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with policies 4.1 and 4.8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' 2004.

Informatives:

1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents:

Adopted UDP Policies:

4.1 Design of development 4.8 Conservation areas 5.9 Extensions and alterations to private houses and gardens

Supplementary Planning Document 4 : Residential extensions

Brentham Garden Estate conservation area appraisal 2008 Brentham Garden Estate management plan. 2008 Brentham Garden Estate Policy and Design Guidance 1988 Page 7 of 8 Item No: 05

In reaching this decision specific consideration was given to whether the subject site is suitable for the proposed development and whether it is compatible with the character and nature of neighbouring areas. Consideration was also given to consultation comments and relevant policies including Ealing Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The development would be consistent with other relevant planning policies, which seek protect residential amenity and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation area. The proposal would also be in accordance with the relevant National Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements, which seek to promote sustainable development

2 No bonfires should be lit on site

3 The Council's Environmental Health Service has powers to control noise and disturbance during buildings works. It considers that normal and reasonable working hours for building sites are 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturday and not at all on Sunday or Public Holidays. If any activities take place on the site beyond these times which give rise to noise audible outside the site the Council is likely to take action requiring these activities to cease.

4 Prior to commencement of construction and demolition works, involving materials containing asbestos, details of mitigation measures to control the release of asbestos fibres shall be submitted to the Environmental Health section for approval

5 Prior to the commencement of any site works, all sensitive properties surrounding the site boundary shall be notified in writing of the nature and duration of works to be undertaken, and the name and address of a responsible person, to whom an enquiry/complaint should be directed.

Human Rights Act:

In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents' right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.

Page 8 of 8