9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 July 2021 by P D Sedgwick BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/W/20/3264259 9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Philip Haralambous against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application Ref 33873/APP/2020/964, dated 19 March 2020, was refused by notice dated 2 June 2020. • The development proposed is Demolition of existing side extension on No 9 and construction of a new build 3 bed bungalow in the rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council’s reasons for refusing the application refer to Policies 3.5, 5.3, 7.1 and 7.4 of the London Plan (2016), which relate to quality of design, the contribution development makes to local character and the environmental performance of buildings. That plan has since been superseded by the London Plan 2021 (LP) published in March 2021.

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision Policy D3 of the LP sets similar requirements for development with respect to the quality of design and how it responds to local character and the need to ensure appropriate amenity, and policy D6 sets out design standards for new housing development. I have therefore determined the appeal with regard to Policies D3 and D6 and am satisfied that neither party will be caused an injustice by taking this approach. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of future occupants of the building and occupants of 7 Myrtle Close, with particular regard to outlook and natural light and privacy, and outlook, respectively; • whether the proposed development would give rise to vehicular conflict and inconvenience as a result of the proposed parking arrangements. Reasons Character and appearance https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/R5510/W/20/3264259 4. 7 and 9 Myrtle Close are on the corner of a cul de sac turning head with their front elevations and plots perpendicular to each other. This layout has resulted in No 9 having a substantial side garden along the boundary with the rear garden of No 7, in addition to its front and rear gardens. The appeal site comprises this side garden. Additional garden space is common to other corner plots on similarly laid out streets in the vicinity. As such it is part of the pattern and grain of the surrounding area and thus its character, even though it is not visible from the street. Houses in the area are generally 2 storey, semi- detached, face the road and are set back behind front gardens or hardstandings for off road parking. 5.

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision A detached single storey back garden development would therefore be out of character with, and thus harm, the local area and as such the proposal would conflict with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMH 6, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) (DMP), Policies D3 and D6 of the LP, The London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2016) (SPG) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework) which seek to prevent inappropriate garden development and development that would fail to harmonise with the local context. Living conditions 6. The appeal site is bounded by 7 and 9 Myrtle Close, and access roads to the side and rear of the site serving adjacent schools. It is proposed to retain a 2m high fence on the boundary with No 7 and No 9, but no indication is given as to the proposed boundary treatments adjacent to the school access roads. 7. 2 of the proposed bedroom windows would be 3 metres from, and look directly onto, the fence along the boundary with No 7.

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision This would restrict the outlook from these windows, and daylight available to the rooms, to an unacceptable degree and lead to an overreliance on artificial lighting. Despite the oblique angle between the first floor rear windows of No 7 and the proposed bedroom windows, there would be overlooking from No 7 which would have an unacceptable impact on the privacy of future occupants of the proposed development. The proposed roof would be more than 3 metres higher than the boundary fence and despite the distance between the proposed dwelling and the fence it would appear visually intrusive and dominant from No 7’s rear garden. 8. The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of future occupants of the proposed development in terms of outlook, privacy and daylight, and occupants of No 7 in terms of outlook, and as such would be poorly designed and thus conflict with Policy DMHB 11 of the DMP, LP Policies D3 and D6, the London Plan (SPG) and the Framework which require development to be high quality, sustainable and not to have an adverse impact on amenity. Highway safety 9.

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision According to Hillingdon’s Adopted Car Parking Standards in Appendix C of the DMP, the proposed development would require 2 car parking spaces, although because of the site’s access to public transport the Council reduced its requirement to one space. No parking spaces are provided or possible because of the back land nature of the site. Myrtle Close is narrow and not suitable for https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision According to Hillingdon’s Adopted Car Parking Standards in Appendix C of the DMP, the proposed development would require 2 car parking spaces, although because of the site’s access to public transport the Council reduced its requirement to one space. No parking spaces are provided or possible because of the back land nature of the site. Myrtle Close is narrow and not suitable for https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/R5510/W/20/3264259 parking on both sides of the road without impeding traffic movement and manoeuvring. There is a mix of on street and off street parking on the road, and in the surrounding area, with parking restrictions and resident permit parking. 10. The appellant submitted a car parking survey report based on surveys carried out in February 2018 for a different planning application nearby. It concluded that there were relatively low levels of parking stress on Myrtle Close with carpark space occupancy levels of between 61 and 69%, and in the wider area of between 77 and 82%. These are below the 85% threshold the Council would consider problematic. On that basis the appellant considers that there is capacity to meet the required parking for the proposed development within the surrounding streets. 11. However, the survey report maps for Myrtle Close are inaccurate. The stretch of road opposite the site, to the front of Nos 2 and 4 Myrtle Close, was identified as permit holder parking, with spaces available during the surveys. At the time of my visit there were double yellow lines at that location and thus no on street parking available.

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — Appeal Decision I share the Council’s concern that the survey information is out of date. Consequently, it cannot be relied upon to demonstrate that there is enough on street parking for occupants of the proposed development and that highway safety would be maintained. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policies DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the DMP which require that development proposals must comply with the Council’s parking standards unless it would not lead to street parking problems or congestion or to the reduction of road safety of all users. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

9 Myrtle Close, Uxbridge, UB8 3QB — London Borough of Hillingdon — P D Sedgwick INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3