Construction of a first floor front extension and three rear dormers; the installation of three rooflights to the front roofslope; and alterations to the roof form of the existing single-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 January 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/17/3183806 1 Leabank Close, Sudbury Hill, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3QA  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 Ms Wendy Wuang against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/1991/17, dated 12 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 June 2017.  The development proposed is the construction of a first floor front extension and three rear dormers; the installation of three rooflights to the front roofslope; and alterations to the roof form of the existing single-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed roof alterations on the character and appearance of the Sudbury Hill Conservation Area. Reasons 3. No 1 is a detached house situated at the northern end of a small group of six houses comprising Leabank Close. It is flanked on its north-western side by houses fronting South Hill Avenue, and to the south by No 3 Leabank Close. Beyond the rear, north-eastern, boundary of the property is a footpath known as Green Lane. The footpath is lined with trees and leads from South Hill Avenue in the north to South Vale in the South. 4. There is a degree of uniformity in the design of the houses on Leabank Close, in that the houses are gable-ended with asymmetric roof slopes in which the south-facing slope is longer than the north-facing slope, leaving the south elevation with relatively low eaves. No 1 has a south-facing front elevation, whilst Nos 3, 5 and 7 have west-facing front elevations. Nos 2 and 4 have north-facing front elevations. It would appear that all of the houses were originally designed with cut-away elements in one of the roof slopes, creating balconies. Nos 5 and 7 appear to have filled in these balconies with dormer windows. 5. The proposal at No 1 would involve the creation of a new front elevation with higher eaves and two hipped-roof elements flanking a smaller front balcony, with three rooflights above. To the rear, there would be three new flat-roofed dormer windows spaced equally and located centrally within the roof slope. The Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3183806 2 dormers would be set in around 1.7 metres from the gable ends, 1.5 metres up from the eaves and 0.5 metres down from the ridge. There would also be minor alterations to the roof of a single-storey, flat-roofed side extension, chiefly involving the insertion of a roof light. 6. The Council contends that the proposal, by reason of poor design, would cumulatively result in a cluttered appearance and detract from the simple roof form. It would thus be harmful to the character and appearance of the original house and would fail to preserve or enhance the Sudbury Hill Conservation Area (CA). 7. The CA appraisal indicates that Green Lane is “a narrow sloping walkway, notably absent of properties and continuously lined with dense public and private planting that creates a tunnel of greenery. Whilst the rear of properties along … Leabank Close … are vaguely visible through this, they do not detract from the dominant secluded character as they are set back, do not face the walkway and have unobtrusive designs”. The Appraisal also contains a map showing views into, within and out of the CA. Views down Green Lane from its junction with South Hill are indicated as “views of character”. From this viewpoint and when walking down Green Lane, the rear elevation and roof of the appeal property is prominent, along with the more distant northern roofslopes of Nos 3, 5 and 7. These roofs have a degree of uniformity and a generally uncluttered appearance that is evident in the view from the northern end of Green Lane. The proposed rear dormers at the appeal property would be obtrusive and would appear out of character in this view. 8. The general uniformity of design of the houses on Leabank Close is based around the use of asymmetric roofslopes. This is clearly evident despite the existence of dormer extensions within the longer roofslope on Nos 5 and 7. The proposed alterations to the front roofslope at the appeal property would result in uncharacteristic features, as represented by the two new hipped roof elements and higher eaves line. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of Leabank Close. 9. In the light of the above, I consider that the proposed alterations to the roof at the appeal property would result in a cluttered appearance that would be unsympathetic to the host property and nearby properties in Leabank Close. They would, therefore, be harmful to the CA and would fail to preserve or enhance its character or appearance. Whilst this would represent less than substantial harm, there would be no public benefits to weigh against the harm. 10. In conclusion, I find that the proposals would conflict with Policies DM1 and DM7 of the Council’s Development Management Policies Document which indicate that proposals that are harmful to local character and appearance will be resisted and that the impact of proposals affecting heritage assets will be assessed having regard to a number of factors, including relevant issues of design, appearance and character. They would also fail to respond positively to key elements identified in the Appraisal document for the CA. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR