Contact: Victoria Kocher Tel: 020 8583 5179 E-Mail...Contact: Victoria Kocher Tel: 020 8583 5179 E-Mail: [email protected] Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning)

Contact: Victoria Kocher Tel: 020 8583 5179 E-Mail: [email protected]

Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) 24th June 2010

Heston Central

6 The Crossways, Heston Report by: Divisional Head of Regulatory and Developmental Services.

Summary

This report seeks Members authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the erection of a porch at the front of 6 The Crossways, Heston without the benefit of planning permission.

1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 That the Committee considers it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for:

1.2 All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an enforcement notice in relation to the land at 6 The Crossways, Heston requiring within three calendar months:

• The removal of the front porch

• The removal of all resultant debris

and

The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the above enforcement notice, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and

The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 of the Act in the event of non-compliance with the enforcement notice, including the recovery of the Council’s costs in carrying out such work.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The site contains a two-storey semi detached house facing south onto The Crossways. The house has been extended in the form of a hip to gable alteration, a rear dormer extension (no record but likely to be PD) and a single storey rear extension. The exterior of the house is characterised by a front gable element with pebble dashed exterior and a red tile roof.

2.2 The porch that is the subject of this report is positioned in front of the original entrance to the house. It measures 1.219m deep, 2,736m wide and has a height of 2.480m at

2

the eaves rising to 3.491m on a gable end roof. The porch canopy extends beyond the porch a further 0.59m (total depth of 1.813m deep) and includes two neo classical pillars.

2.3 The area is characterised by a series of semi-detached properties. Whilst a number of properties on the road have been extended to the front by way of a fairly small porch, nothing of the scale or design of the subject porch (featuring neo-classical pillars) was noted on site.

2.4 The exception to this being the front extension at the adjacent property, No.4. This front extension is both shallower and has a lower height than the subject development but does also include the neoclassical pillars. There is no planning record of this structure and it was the subject of an investigation by Planning Enforcement. However this development is more than four years old and is therefore immune from enforcement action. Notwithstanding this the development is considered to be a visually obtrusive structure that is harmful to the appearance and character of the original house and the street scene and would fail to comply with either UDP policies or the REG.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY AND OTHER RECORDS

3.1 Planning Records

00329/6/P1

Erection of single storey rear extension to the house.

Approved: 29/5/08

00329/6/LAW1

Certificate of Lawfulness for the erection of a single storey detached outbuilding for use as a gym incorporating a shower room

Granted: 29/5/08

00329/6/P2

Retention of front extension

Refused: 17/4/09

00329/6/P3 Retention of front porch extension (with alterations)

Approved 27/8/09

00329/6/P4 Retrospective application for retention of a porch

Refused: 9/04/2010

3.2 Other Council Records

3

The Council’s aerial photography dated the 2/05/2007 indicates that the unauthorised porch had not been built.

4.0 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY, INVESTIGATION AND EVIDENCE.

This is a breach of planning control because the porch does not benefit from planning permission and it was built within the last four years.

4.1 On the 17th January 2009 a complaint was received alleging that an unauthorised porch had been erected at 6 The Crossways.

4.2 On the 3rd February 2009 a letter was sent to the owner outlining the breach of planning control and the ways in which it could be remedied.

4.3 On the 20th February 2009 a retrospective planning application to retain the porch was submitted. It was subsequently refused on the 17th April 2009.

4.4 A second planning application incorporating amendments to the porch was submitted on the 6th July 2009. This was subsequently approved on the 27th August 2009.

4.5 On the 2nd September 2009 a letter was sent to the owner confirming that the Council was expecting the owner to carry out the alterations to the front porch as approved in his recent planning application. The letter stated that failure to carry out the necessary work would result in the Council pursuing enforcement action.

4.6 On the 25th January 2010 a visit established that the necessary amendments to the porch had not been carried out.

4.7 On the 25th February 2010 a letter was sent to the owner confirming that the Council would write a report recommending enforcement action if the owner failed to remove the overhang and two pillars by the 5th April 2010.

4.8 On the 10th March 2010 an identical retrospective planning application was submitted. This was refused on the 9th April 2010. To date the necessary works have not been carried out.

4.9 On the 30th April 2010 a final letter was sent to the owner stating that the a report would be written and presented to the area committee is not demolished by the 1st June 2010.

4.10 Photos of the porch can be seen on the following page.

4

The unauthorised porch at number 6

The immune porch at number 4

5

5.0 ANALYSIS

Expediency in general

5.1 Under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the Council has the power to take enforcement action where it assesses that a breach of planning control has resulted in material harm in planning terms.

5.2 Guidance as to how to apply this power and when a Council should find enforcement action expedient is contained in PPG18 and Circular 10/97, both entitled ‘Enforcing Planning Control’. The government urges local planning authorities to use enforcement action as a last resort. Reports are not brought forward to committee unless it has been concluded that there is no other course of action available.

5.3 In addition to Government guidance the statutory Development Plan sets criteria against which to judge whether a breach of planning control is unacceptable.

5.4 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.5 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the London Plan. The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by direction from the Secretary of State. The 'London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004)' was adopted in February 2008.

Relevant Planning Policy

5.6 The Development Plan policies relevant to this case are:

ENV-B.1.1: New Development

In relation to the context, form and layout of the buildings and spaces, new development should:

Relate well to its site and the scale, nature, height, massing, character and use of the adjacent townscape.

Respect the proportions of existing neighbouring buildings where there are strong uniform design characteristics, such as doors, windows and roofs

Use durable and high quality materials, that relate satisfactorily to its surroundings in terms of colour, scale, texture and pattern

6

H.6.4: Extensions and Alterations

Extensions should normally be consistent with the Council’s guidelines on house extensions and meet the following criteria:

Position: Extensions should respect property boundaries and be positioned to avoid loss of light to adjoining properties.

Materials: Proposals should aim to match the type of materials and colour to both the existing building and surrounding area.

Details: Attention should be paid to design details, such as position and style of windows and doors and must complement the existing building and respect the character of the area.

5.7 The key planning issues in this case are therefore:

• The principle of the proposed development.

• The impact of the development on the property, the pair of semi-detached properties and on the street scene.

Assessment of Harm

The principle of the development

5.8 Policy ENV-B.1.1 of the Unitary Development Plan states that new development should be compatible with, and seek to enhance the character of the area in terms of size, scale, materials and design.

5.9 Policy H.6.4 states that extensions and alterations should complement the original building and maintain the general street scene.

5.10 The Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines are designed to ensure that proposed work is visually cohesive with the original house and the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities enjoyed by occupiers of surrounding properties.

5.11 Front extensions and canopies are therefore acceptable in principle. However, the proposed retention of the canopy together with the pillars is considered to be contrary to the above policies and guidance by reason of their size and position which harm the appearance of the house, the pair of semi-detached properties and the street scene and the wider area as set out in the following paragraphs.

5.12 An Inspector has noted that ‘There is sufficient evidence to show that in Hounslow the Council is trying to apply its planning policy and guidance consistently and that significant visual improvements have been secured through its action’.(APP/F5540/C/09/2112908- 20 The Glen).

7

The impact of the development on the property, the pair of semi-detached properties and on the street scene

5.13 The Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines state that front extensions that are larger than a porch will normally be refused planning permission as they stand out as unusual, bulky extensions that significantly change the appearance of the house and street. The canopy does not fall within the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order due to its overall footprint. It is therefore considered larger than what would normally be considered acceptable for a front extension.

5.14 The porch is large in size and forms a bulky extension on the front of the house. Its mass is exacerbated by its forward projection and two substantial supporting columns. In terms of design and materials it is out of keeping with the original building. Whilst not directly effecting living conditions at a neighbouring property the harmful visual impact upon the street scene and obtrusive, overbearing nature of the structure would effect outlook from neighbouring houses

5.15 The extension, because of its excessive size, harms the symmetry of the semi-detached pair of houses and unbalances the façade of the building as a whole. Whilst i it is noted that the existing hip to gable alteration has effected the symmetry and character of the pair of houses to date, in particular disrupting the original rhythm of hipped roofs, it is considered that the subject development compounds the harmful relationship that has been created to the further detriment of the appearance and character of the pair of semi detached houses and the street scene.

5.16 The Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines state that front extensions should be set well back from the front of the house nearest to the road and that the depth of any porch or canopy must not extend past the line of an existing bay window. The existing canopy stands 1.2m forward of the original bay window, in effect nullifying it as a prominent and imposing, original feature of the house and drastically and unacceptably altering the appearance of the dwelling from the street.

5.17 The Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines state that, unless a feature of the original house, pillars will normally be refused. The neo-classical pillar proposed appears as a pastiche feature that is again out of keeping with the design, appearance and character of No.6 The Crossways, the pair of semi-detached properties and the wider street scene.

5.18 At appeal an Inspector (APP/F5540/A/09/2102208 – 82 West Way- appeal dismissed) has noted in relation to a similar proposal that ‘the canopy subsumes the ground floor bay window which is an important feature on the front elevation of this dwelling. The decorative column to the front of the bay window appears as an incongruous detail on this dwelling’.

5.19 Whilst it is acknowledged that a similar development has been erected at the adjacent house, No.4, The Crossways, this structure is immune from enforcement action having been in situ for more than four years. As with the subject development this structure is an example of an alien, incongruous feature within the street scene. It should also be noted that the structure at No.4 has a lower height and shallower depth than the subject development. It is the LPA’s view that the existence of this does not justify the retention of another contrary to current policies and guidance.

5.20 It is considered that as a result of its excessive size and scale when taken with its inappropriate design that the proposed development has a harmful impact upon the

8

design, character and appearance of the house itself, the pair of semis of which No.6 forms part and the street scene.

Proposed action

• The removal of the front porch

• The removal of all resultant debris

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

6.1 The porch by way of its size, together with the excessive depth in relation to the existing bay window and the inclusion of pillars has a negative impact upon the appearance of the existing house, the semi-detached pair and the wider street scene.

6.2 Based on the information in this report it has been concluded that no action short of the proposed enforcement action described in this report can remove the harm caused by these breaches of planning control. In these circumstances, it is considered expedient to take enforcement action as recommended at the start of this report.

Background Papers:

Relevant UDP polices are ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) and H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations), Residential Extension Guidelines section 7. The policy documents can be viewed online, at the Civic Centre and at local libraries.