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.