Ruislip

Application Details

Applicant & Agent

Planning Application Dates

Planning Decision

Why it was refused

1. 1.The proposed development, by virtue of its overall size, scale, bulk and design, would result in disproportionate and unsympathetic additions to the property which would fail to appropriately integrate with the existing dwelling. The resultant structure would dominate and unbalance the rear of the dwelling to a significant extent, appearing as visually incongruous and overly-enlarged; failing to integrate successfully with the host dwelling. Considered altogether, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site in which the proposed additions considered as a whole are neither subservient nor proportionate to the modest scale of the existing property or surrounding terraced dwellings. Combined with the unsatisfactory design, the proposed PDECHHODB (ODB) 40031/APP/2026/1530 development, particularly to the rear, would appear as incongruous detracting from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and visual amenities of the area. As such, the proposed development fails to have due regard for Local and National Planning Policy, and would be in direct conflict with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), and the overarching design requirements of Part 14 of the NPPF (2026).
2. 2.The proposed development, namely the single storey rear element, by virtue of its depth, height, and siting in relation to neighbouring properties, would represent a large and prominent feature to the rear of the property which would appear as harmfully domineering and overbearing for the adjoining neighbour, no. 29. Additionally, and on account of its southerly orientation in relation to this neighbour, the extension would also contribute to an unacceptable level of access to daylight and sunlight for the neighbouring occupiers of no. 29. As such, the proposal would represent an un-neighbourly form of development which would not achieve a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings, failing to preserve the amenity of a neighbouring property. The proposed development would therefore not conform to the requirements of Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) or Policy P3 2b of the NPPF (2026).

From the council's decision notice.

Publicity

Appeal

Additional Information