Retention of an existing part built outbuilding (as amended)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2017 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/17/3185394 156 Kings Road, Harrow, HA2 9JH  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 Clay Henley against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/2928/17, dated 26 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 August 2017.  The development proposed is described as “Retention of an existing part built outbuilding (as amended)”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I saw during my visit an outbuilding had been erected at the foot of the garden to No 156 and which was substantially complete. The proposal that is before me would include modifications to the existing structure resulting in a building with a lower ridge height when compared with the existing. The appeal proposal is therefore partly retrospective. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The outbuilding faces onto a securely gated, unmade lane that runs for a considerable length to the rear of properties along Kings Road and Ravenswood Crescent, which runs parallel. This route is potted with a vast array of outbuildings to the foot of most properties. A similar arrangement is repeated for properties on the opposite side of Kings Road. 5. No 156 is an end of terrace and is separated by its unattached neighbour at No 158 by a driveway that runs between them both and which provides access to the rear lane. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3185394 2 6. The appeal building occupies the full width of the plot and has a staggered elevation facing the rear access route. One half of the building is used as a garage. This part has a shallower depth than the other half which is split into a store and an office/study. The building’s ridge line runs across the width of the plot with tiled roof slopes to either side. 7. The plans show the existing building’s ridge to be equidistant from the front and rear elevations of the shorter, garage part of the building, with the deeper half of the building constructed with equivalent eaves heights and a split roof with a pitch that is longer and shallower facing towards the rear access lane. The proposal includes lowering the ridge height, with a traditional, dual pitched roof spanning only the shallowest part of the building, with the additional depth beyond finished with a flat roof. The plans show that the new ridge height would be 3.6m above ground level and the new flat roof element would be 2.65m tall. 8. However, I observed on site that the ridge line to the existing building is actually positioned equidistant from the front and rear elevations of the deepest part of the building and I was particularly struck by the sheer scale of the building when I undertook my visit. It appears considerably more dominant than any other building visible in the immediate surrounds, including that to the rear of No 158, which is barely noticeable as a structure beyond the height of the plot’s boundary enclosure. 9. The plans before me show that the position of the ridge line would not change from the existing position that is incorrectly shown on the plans, but that the pitch of the roof would be lowered. Because the plans do not show the existing arrangement accurately, I find there to be a serious degree of ambiguity about the modifications that are proposed. Furthermore, even if the building were to be modified to achieve a maximum ridge height of 3.6m, this would be way in excess of that normally considered acceptable by the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document. This advises that for outbuildings within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of a dwellinghouse the maximum height should be 2.5m. Given that the building is openly visible, including in views from Kings Road through the gap between Nos 156 and 158, its height would remain excessive and the building overall visually intrusive within the area. 10. My attention has been drawn to an outbuilding that has been erected to the rear of No 125 Kings Road with the benefit of planning permission. This relates to a property on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site although within an area comprising similar properties and arrangements for access to the rear. This building is openly visible from the public domain along Clovelly Way. The appellant has argued that the dimensions for the eaves and ridge height of that building are similar to that proposed at No 156. That may be the case, but I found the development to the rear of No 125 to stand out as an incongruous intrusion into the rear garden setting of these properties, noticeably out of scale and proportion to other outbuildings in the vicinity. I am unaware of the Council’s reasoning in that example, but it demonstrates to me how harmful development can appear if it is not carefully considered in relation to its setting. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3185394 3 11. I accept that the immediate environment to the rear of No 156 is not especially attractive. However, that does not justify the erection of a building that is out of scale and proportion to its surroundings. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, I find that the building, as proposed to be modified, would be over large and insensitive to its residential, garden setting. This would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. It would thereby be contrary to Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies, adopted in 2013, and Policy 7.6B of The London Plan 2016, both of which deal with the quality of design and the need for development to respect the local context. The appeal is therefore dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR