Erection of a side extension to the first floor and a loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 April 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/18/3193770 98 Elms Road, Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 6BT  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 Peter Lynch against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/4280/17 was refused by notice dated 28 November 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a side extension to the first floor and a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is one of a pair of hip-ended semi-detached houses in a predominantly residential area, wherein buildings vary in size, type and style. Like No 98, several properties along the same side of Elms Road as the site have been extended and externally altered including No 94 to which the appellant has referred and provided photographs. Consequently, there is some variety to the built form within the local area to which No 98 belongs. The site is not within a conservation area nor is the host building listed. 4. At the front, the new first floor wall of the side addition would be set back from the porch and study below and the front bay windows. It would, however, align with the main front wall. The line of the existing ridge would also be carried over the side extension terminating with a gable rather than a hip end. The absence of a minimum 1-metre set back from the existing front corner or a subordinate pitched roof would conflict with the detailed guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Residential Design Guide (SPD). 5. The proposed arrangement would give a disproportionate bulk to the upper part of the house. It would also seriously imbalance the pair of which No 98 forms part, as the attached property appears to retain its original hipped roof. The overall effect would be an incongruous and over-sized side addition to the host building, detracting from both it and the pair. It would also draw the eye from the road notwithstanding the set back of the property from the highway and the varied built form and spacious feel within the local street scene. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3193770 2 6. At the rear, the new dormer would have a flat roof and occupy almost the entire width and height of the roof slope of the extended house. It would visually dominate the appearance of the back of the house and relate poorly to the proportions of the host building, even with the existing full width ground floor rear projection in place. In addition, the relatively wide window in the new dormer would neither line up with nor satisfactorily relate to the smaller first floor windows below. While this part of the proposal would not be visible in the street scene, it would be evident from the rear gardens of the adjacent dwellings. From these vantage points, proposed dormer, due to its scale, bulk and fenestration, would detract significantly from the character, scale and appearance of the house and from others nearby. In reaching these findings, I have taken into account the use of materials to match the existing building. 7. I observed several extensions to properties in the vicinity of the site including those at Nos 94 and 100, which the appellant considers to be similar to the proposal. However few background details of these schemes have been provided and so I cannot be certain that their particular circumstances are the same or very similar to those of the proposal. In my opinion, the gable-ended side extension to what appears to have been a hip-ended pair at No 94 clearly demonstrates the visual harm arising when one of a pair is significantly altered. The overly bulky rear dormer at No 94 also provides little support for what is intended at the site. None of these matters, or the architectural cues taken from other built additions to properties along Elms Road, would add support to the proposal, such as to outweigh the significant harm that would come from the substantial and inappropriate enlargement that it would entail. 8. On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan, Policy CS 1B of the Harrow Core Strategy and Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies. These policies state that development should achieve a high standard of design and respond positively to the local context. There would also be conflict with guidance in the Council’s SPD, for the reasons given. It would also be at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should aim to achieve high quality design; respond to local character; and add to the overall qualities of an area. 9. The proposal, once complete, would provide additional living space for the appellant and his family. No harm would be caused to the living conditions of others. Even so, these matters do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR