Ground floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2018 by A A Phillips BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/17/3187703 88 Marlborough Hill, Harrow HA1 1TY  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 Edmond Bicari against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/3389/17, dated 21 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 October 2017.  The development proposed is a ground floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. Having regard to the Council’s reason for refusal I consider that the main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of an adjoining property with particular reference to light, outlook and overshadowing. Reasons 3. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide adopted 15 December 2010 (the SPD) recommends a 3 metre maximum depth and height of an extension adjacent to a neighbouring boundary for a semi- detached property such as the one the subject of this appeal. However the SPD recognises that there may be circumstances where the recommended depth may be exceeded. 4. The proposed depth of the extension of 4 metres exceeds the suggested depth and it would be situated very close to a projecting adjacent bay window at No 90 Marlborough Hill. The evidence before me suggests that No 90 is a house in multiple occupation and that the affected ground floor window serves a diner / bedroom which is nonetheless habitable accommodation and worthy of protection. 5. The glazed bay window to the rear of No 90 projects by approximately 0.6 metres and therefore the proposed single storey rear extension would project a further approximately 3.4 metres beyond that. I also noted at my site visit that on the opposite side of the bay window No 90 has a projecting rear extension. As such, given the proposed 4 metre projection of the extension the development would create a tunnelling effect, compromising the outlook from the diner / bedroom which would be significantly harmed. As such the extension would be an overly dominant and visually obtrusive feature. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3187703 2 6. However, given the orientation of the appeal property and No 90 I do not agree that the proposed extension would have a significant or unacceptable effect in terms of overshadowing or loss of natural light. 7. I observed on site that No 86 Marlborough Hill has a ground floor rear extension which has rear facing windows close to the boundary with the appeal site. However, given the projection of the proposed extension in relation to the existing arrangement at No 86 I do not consider that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of No 86 with respect to light, outlook or overshadowing. 8. Therefore, although the proposal is relatively modest in projection and height I conclude that it would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 90 with reference to outlook. In that regard I find conflict with Policy 7.6 of the London Plan March 2016, Policy DM1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies July 2013 and the SPD. Among other objectives these seek to ensure that the assessment of the design of proposals will have regard to the relationship with and impact on neighbouring properties. However, I find there to be no unacceptable harm to the occupants of No 90 with regard to overshadowing or light. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above and taking into account other matters raised I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and that the appeal should be dismissed. Alastair Phillips INSPECTOR