Two storey side extension. Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 March 2018 by S Jones MA DipLP an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/17/3189759 35 Cranbourne Drive, Pinner, Middlesex HA5 1BX  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 Sam Moore against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/3686/17, dated 27 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 November 2017.  The development proposed is two storey side extension. Single storey rear extension. Porch extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side extension. Single storey rear extension. Porch extension at 35 Cranbourne Drive, Pinner, Middlesex HA5 1BX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/3686/17 dated 27 July 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 561-4 Rev C, 561-3 Rev E, 561-2 Rev A, 561-1 Rev B, Flood Risk Assessment dated April 2017. 3) No development shall commence until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples. 4) The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. 5) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the new windows in the east elevation have been fitted with purpose made obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscure glazing and non-opening features shall be retained thereafter. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/W/17/3189759 2 Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a detached two storey dwelling in an area of other similar detached dwellings, although the adjacent property as No 37 is a bungalow on the corner with a loft conversion at first floor. The proposal would replace the existing garage to the side and conservatory at the rear with a side and rear two storey extension next to No 37 and wrapping around to part way along the rear. It would slightly increase the separation between the properties at No 35 and No 37. The remainder of the rear would have a new single storey extension next to No 33, retaining the existing separation distance between the two. A larger front porch would be constructed in the front elevation and the proposed side and rear extension would be inset by over 1m from the frontage. 4. The combined extensions would result in a larger footprint and bulkier roof. However, the roof alterations would not be across the whole width of the property and the part rear section would be inset behind the existing ridge line and less visible. New windows in the side towards No 37 would be to bathroom ensuites and obscure glazed. The frontage would continue to resemble other properties in the area and the addition would be clearly subservient. 5. The existing buildings at No 33 and No 37 would be roughly level with the rear of the proposal. The adjacent detached dwelling at No 33 has an existing roughly 3-4m deep extension to the rear and the single storey extension section at No 35 would reflect that depth. The ground floor element of the wrap around extension would reflect the existing situation in so far as there are already single storey extensions next to No 37. On that basis the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site or the area in respect of the building footprint or the ground floor extensions. 6. The appeal site already has a rear conservatory extending about 4.25m to the rear. An existing planning permission ref P/0569/17 was granted at the appeal site permitting an almost identical development except that the upper first floor section of the side and rear extension section would be inset by about 1m from the back edge, making it roughly 3m above the 4m ground floor part. 7. In my view the roughly 1m extra difference in the first floor extension between the proposal and the extant planning permission would be minimal. A 4m rather than 3m first floor depth would not be disproportionately bulky in the context of the overall proportions of the appeal site, and in comparison to other extended dwellings in the local vicinity. Consequently this proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site or the surrounding area. 8. Therefore I conclude that it would not be contrary to Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan, Policy CS1.B of the London Borough of Harrow Core Strategy and policy DM1 of the London Borough of Harrow Development Management Policies and their aims of securing appropriate development reflecting local characteristics. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/W/17/3189759 3 Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to conditions imposed to specify the timing and scope of the development, to secure a satisfactory final appearance, and to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The Officer Report refers to removing permitted rights to create further windows in the flank elevations, however I consider there are no exceptional circumstances to justify its imposition in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance. S Jones INSPECTOR