Extension of an existing two storey dwelling to also include internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2021 by Steven Hartley BA (Hons) Dist.TP (Manc) DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450 /D/21/3268123 23 Dennis Lane, Stanmore HA7 4JS • 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 and Mrs Spurling against the decision of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref: P/3067/20, dated 28 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 25 November 2020. • The development proposed is described as an extension of an existing two storey dwelling to also include internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning approval is granted for an extension to the two storey dwelling at 23 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JS in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: P/3067/20, dated 28 August 2020, and subject to the following conditions: i) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. ii) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: W1577 P01; W1577 P02; W1577 P03; W1577 P04; W1577 P05; W1577 P06; W1577 P07; W1577 P08; W1577 P09. Procedural Matter 2. A new London Plan 2021 (LP) was published in March 2021 and this post-dates the Council’s refusal notice. This now forms part of the development plan for the area. As part of the determination of this appeal, I afforded the main parties an opportunity to comment on the implications of this change for the purposes of determining this appeal, though no such comments have been received. I have determined this appeal in accordance with the area-based policies in the development plan. 3. I have also requested from the local planning authority (LPA) a copy of the Harrow Residential Design Guide Supplementary Design Guide 2010 (SPD), and while the LPA has not responded, the appellant has forwarded a copy. I have, therefore, taken the document into account when determining the appeal. Appeal Ref: APP/M5450 /D/21/3268123 2 4. The LPA has determined the application based on the above plans, submitted on the 28 August 2020. While the appellants subsequently submitted amended plans, I do not have such details before me, and in any event, the appellants have submitted the appeal with reference to the above plans. I have determined the appeal based upon them. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on that of the surrounding area. Reason 6. The area is generally characterised by large detached, two storey dwellings set in generous landscaped grounds and with front elevations set back from the main road They are of differing designs with little uniformity other than the general overall height of the properties, their size and detached nature and their landscaped settings. 7. The extension, when viewed from the front elevation, would not be set back from the existing elevation nor would it have a lower roofline than the existing dwelling in accordance with the advice contained in the SPD. However, I consider that the proposed extension, by its ridge height, hipped roof, by not being set back from the front elevation, and by the proposed window pattern would appear as if it was always part of the originally constructed dwelling. Any set back, or the lack of it, would not be especially discernible from any public vantage point. For these reasons, I do not find that the extension would be bulky or visually unacceptable, either in relation to the dwelling itself or in the street scene. 8. The proposed extension would largely infill an existing side inset, leaving a distance to Eaton Close comparable to that of the property directly opposite. It would be largely hidden from view by the existing high hedge but even if the hedge was not there, I find that the extension, when viewed from Eaton Close would be visually acceptable for the above reasons. 9. The LPA considers that the extension would be visually objectionable to neighbours. However, I find that it would not have an adverse impact upon their outlook because of the separation distances involved. In addition, the property immediately opposite it on Eaton Close has obscure glass in the windows to the elevation directly facing the proposed extension. Whilst there is no right in planning terms to a view, I have nevertheless found that the proposed extension would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. 10. The proposed extension includes a box dormer style window on the side elevation, but given the distance to other dwellings and gardens I find that it would not lead to any acceptable overlooking, nor do I find that it would be introduce an unacceptable, adverse feature to the character and appearance of the building or the area. 11. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with policy CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy 2012, policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013,thre SPD and with Appeal Ref: APP/M5450 /D/21/3268123 3 paragraph 127 of the Framework, which stress the importance of good design, reflecting the character and appearance of the area. I have found some conflict with the SPD but that in this instance the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building or the area. Conditions 12. Planning permission if granted subject to the standard three-year time limit condition. 13. It is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have therefore imposed a condition to this effect. Conclusion 14. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Steven Hartley INSPECTOR