Single and two storey side to rear extension; single storey rear extension; roof extensions including rear dormer; installation of two rooflights in front roofslope
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 8 May 2017
by Nicola Davies BA DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 23 May 2017
Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/17/3172869
61 Orchard Grove, Harrow HA3 9QR
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 Bharat Kerai against the decision of the Council of the London
Borough of Harrow.
The application Ref P/0076/17, dated 27 January 2017, was refused by notice dated
24 March 2017.
The development proposed is single and two storey side to rear extension; single storey
rear extension; roof extensions including rear dormer; installation of two rooflights in
front roofslope.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single and two
storey side to rear extension; single storey rear extension; roof extensions
including rear dormer; installation of two rooflights in front roofslope at 61
Orchard Grove, Harrow HA3 9QR in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref P/0076/17, dated 27 January 2017, and the plans numbered
160302-00, 160302-06-PO and 160302-08-PO, subject to the following
condition: -
1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved plans 160302-00, 160302-06-PO Site Plan as Proposed and
160302-08-PO.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr Bharat Kerai against the Council of the
London Borough of Harrow. That application is the subject of a separate
Decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. The description of development provided on the planning application form has
been replaced in the Council’s decision notice. From the details submitted, I
am satisfied that this description is more precise and I have used it here.
4. Extensions and alterations to the dwelling have taken place. I was able to view
these at the time of my visit. However, I observed that the dormer roof
extension to one side is constructed to a different design and form to that
illustrated on proposed drawing number 160302-08-PO. The Council’s decision
notice refers to drawing numbers 160302-00, 160302-06-PO, 160302-07-PO
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3172869
2
and 160302-08-PO and these are the plans and proposal that are before me,
although I note that drawing number 160302-07-PO relates to a previously
refused planning application (Council reference P/4954/16) and I have treated
this plan as background information only. Consequently I cannot entertain the
variation to the dormer roof that has taken place through this appeal. This
matter, therefore, should be taken up by the applicant and the Council away
from this appeal. I shall therefore deal with the issues of the case that are
before me.
5. The Council’s decision notice, although stating the application is refused did not
set out any specific reasons for refusal upon the notice. Nonetheless, the
Council’s decision has been supported by a delegated report compiled to inform
the Council’s decision. The Council has submitted the delegated application
report in support of this appeal which sets out the Council’s intended reason for
refusal. The appellant’s Planning Appeal Statement confirms that the appellant
has used the delegated application report to ascertain the reasons for the
Council’s decision. I am satisfied that the appellant’s Planning Appeal
Statement is consistent in that it deals with those matters that are of concern
to the Council.
Main Issue
6. Bearing the above in mind, the main issue raised in respect of the appeal is the
effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the
host property and the area.
Reasons
7. The area is characterised by two-storey semi-detached and terraced properties
with long rear gardens and garages or outbuildings at the end of the gardens.
The appeal property is an end of terrace dwelling. There is a large garage in
the rear garden that is larger than other garages or outbuildings within the
area.
8. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Residential Design
Guide advises that “roof alterations and dormer windows should complement
original street character and not dominate buildings or impair their proportions
or character”.
9. I observed that there are different roof styles in Orchard Grove. Some end
terrace and semi-detached properties have created accommodation with the
roof space and have changed the hipped roof to a gable.
10. The alterations to the roof of the appeal property has created a hip of slightly
steeper pitch to that of the original hip. This, in my opinion, is a marginal
change in the pitch of the side roofslope and is not appreciably different to that
of the original hipped pitch or that of other hipped roofed properties within the
area. This is not a significant change to the appearance of the dwelling and is
not particularly noticeable in the overall streetscene and nor is the change to
the original roof as significant a change as has taken place elsewhere along
Orchard Grove.
11. The steeper pitch of the side roofslope has facilitated a wider rear roof dormer
than would have been possible if the roof had retained its original side hip.
The Council’s SPD advises that dormers should be subordinate features in the
roof, should not overlap or wrap around the roof hips, and should never rise
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3172869
3
above the ridge. The dormer is constructed up to the ridge and is set off the
common boundary with the adjoining property. It is also set off the eaves of
the host dwelling and is shown on the plans to be set off the two storey rear
extension. Whilst the dormer alters the appearance of the rear roof slope, I
do not consider that it is unduly prominent within the roofslope or is a
disproportionate addition to the dwelling.
12. Furthermore, I observed a large flat roof rear dormer further along Orchard
Grove. In view of this I do not consider the dormer would be out of context
with other such development that has taken place in the area.
13. The Council is also concerned that limited rear garden space is retained
following the erection of rear extensions given the proximity of the existing
garage to these. I observed that the garden has been laid as patio. Whilst the
resulting outdoor space is less than that of other properties in the area, I
consider there to be adequate space retained to provide an outdoor living area
for the occupiers of this family home for their recreational enjoyment.
14. Taking all relevant considerations into account, including the guidance set out
within the SPD, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the
character and appearance of the host property and the area. For the reasons
given above, the proposal would not materially conflict with Policies 7.4B and
7.6B of The London Plan, Policy CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy and Policy
DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan, which seek
all development proposals to achieve a high standard of design and layout and
resist development that would be detrimental to local character and
appearance, amongst other matters.
Conditions
15. I have considered the planning conditions suggested by the Council in light of
paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in the
Planning Practice Guidance. As the development has already taken place a
standard time limit condition is not necessary. I have imposed a condition
specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty.
Conclusions
16. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Nicola Davies
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 8 May 2017
by Nicola Davies BA DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 23 May 2017
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/17/3172869
61 Orchard Grove, Harrow HA3 9QR
The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The application is made by Mr Bharat Kerai for an award of costs against the Council of
the London Borough of Harrow.
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for single and two storey side
to rear extension; single storey rear extension; roof extensions including rear dormer;
installation of two rooflights in front roofslope.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying
for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. Concern has been raised by the appellant with regard to the lack of an officer
site visit. The Council confirms that an officer site visit took place as part of
the process of considering the planning application. The appellant does not
dispute this but considers a further officer site visit was necessary to enable
the Council to consider changes made to the roof dormer to address officer
concerns in relation to its size.
4. Further to this, the appellant has also implied that he has sought to discuss the
issues of contention with the Council to seek to agree minor differences
between the approved scheme and that which has been built.
5. These matters pertain to the processing of and the consideration of the
planning application by the Council and are therefore matters between the
appellant and the Council separate to this appeal. Notwithstanding this, I have
no substantive or detailed evidence before me that would indicate that a
further site visit or discussions could or would have obviated this appeal.
6. The appellant further contends that had he applied for planning permission for
each separate part of the proposed development, permission may have been
forthcoming for each element individually. However, this is not what was
applied for and therefore this was not before the Council for consideration.
Costs Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3172869
2
7. The appellant advocates that the proposed development is only marginally
larger than that of a previous planning permission granted by the Council.
Furthermore, it is asserted that the rear dormer, as drawing on the submitted
plans, or as built on site, would not be contrary to the Council’s policies and/or
guidance relating to dormer windows. The appellant acknowledges that the
proposed development needs to be considered in regard to its effect on the
character and appearance of the area.
8. The Council’s Delegated Application Report evaluates each element of the
proposed development and/or how it would relate to the host dwelling, how it
would relate to the existing pattern of development and how it would effect
upon the character and appearance of the area. There may be similarities
between schemes but irrespective of this each proposal should be considered
on its own merits as different circumstances will apply. The fact that the
Council came to a negative decision is a matter for their discretion.
9. Despite the Council not setting out specific reasons for refusal in the decision
notice, I am satisfied that the application was considered on its own merit in
light of policy considerations and that the Council has substantiated its refusal
within its Delegated Application Report which has been available to the
appellant. The fact that I have arrived at a contrary view does not, of its self,
show that the Council has behaved unreasonably.
10. The appellant has highlighted delays experienced with respect of the Council’s
validation process and that this has caused the applicant unnecessary delay.
An award of cost cannot extend to compensation for indirect losses, such as,
any delay incurred by the appellant in obtaining planning permission as this
does not relate to the appeal process. Matters pertaining to the Council’s
validation process therefore should be taken up by the applicant and the
Council separate to this appeal.
11. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been
demonstrated.
Nicola Davies
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.