Single storey front extension incorporating porch; two storey side to rear extension; single storey rear extension; external alterations (demolition of attached garage)
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Extensions
Fallback Position
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 13 July 2021
by Kim Langford Tejrar LLB (Hons) BSc (Hons) PGDIP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 26 July 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/21/3272085
18 Blenheim Road, Harrow HA2 7AH
• 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 Ms H Vyas against the decision of London Borough of Harrow.
• The application Ref P/4519/20, dated 11 December 2020, was refused by notice dated
12 March 2021.
• The development proposed is single storey front extension incorporating porch; two
storey side to rear extension; single storey rear extension; external alterations
(demolition of attached garage).
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey
front extension incorporating porch; two storey side to rear extension; single
storey rear extension; external alterations (demolition of attached garage) at
18 Blenheim Road, Harrow HA2 7AH in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref P/4519/20, dated 11 December 2020, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall being 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: Proposed Elevations 1267 drg no. 04 and
Proposed Floor Plans 1267 dwg no. 03.
3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window(s) or
door(s), other than those shown on the approved plans, shall be installed in
the side flank elevation(s) of the development hereby permitted.
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs was made Ms H Vyas against London Borough of
Harrow. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. The description of development was amended following submission of the
application. The amended description better reflects the development proposed
and I have referred it for the purposes of this appeal.
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/21/3272085
2
4. The Revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was
published on 20 July 2021. I am satisfied that the equivalent policies in the
revised Framework have broadly the same approach as their counterparts, and
they do not alter my conclusions on the matter in any case.
Main Issues
5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the
occupiers of No 20 Blenheim Road, with particular regard to light (including
overshadowing) and outlook.
Reasons
6. The reasons for refusal refer to the projection of the proposal and its proximity
to the shared boundary of No 20 Blenheim Road, relative to guidance contained
in the Harrow Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document
2020 (the SPD). Paragraph 6.59 of the SPD sets out that the acceptable depth
of single storey rear extensions will be determined by the need for consistency
with permitted development and other factors, including: site considerations;
the scale of development; and the impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents. Paragraph 6.60 of the SPD outlines the special circumstances where
a greater depth may be allowed. Furthermore, paragraph 6.61 states that the
additional depth should be set away from any side boundaries of the property
by twice the amount of additional depth sought.
7. I have had regard to the guidance of the SPD, nevertheless each case must be
considered on its own merits. Indeed, the SPD invites consideration of other
factors, including site conditions addressed below. In this case, the proposed
single storey rear extension would project approximately 4 metres from the
rear elevation of the adjoining No 20 Blenheim Road and would have low eaves
of approximately 2.55 metres, rising to 3.7 metres at its mono-pitch. Whilst
the proposed extension would be close to the boundary, its mono-pitch design
would ensure its height reduces across its depth. Taken together, these factors
ensure that the proposal would not cause a significant loss of light or outlook to
the rear elevation or garden of No 20 Blenheim Road.
8. Furthermore, No 20 Blenheim Road benefits from an extant permission,
granted by way of appeal decision Ref. 3256015, dated 04 November 2020.
There is no information before me to suggest that the permission will not be
implemented. Indeed, at the time of my visit, preliminary construction work
was taking place at Nos 20 and 22 Blenheim Road, which may be in relation to
the permitted extension. Whilst the permitted rear extension at No 20
Blenheim Road would have a hipped roof, the eaves height and depth would be
similar to that of the appeal proposal. Although I have concluded that the
appeal proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of No
20 Blenheim Road in any case, the permitted rear extension would negate any
effects of the appeal proposal on the living conditions of No 20 Blenheim Road.
9. For these reasons, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 20 Blenheim
Road. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan,
adopted 2021, policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies
Local Plan, adopted 2013, the SPD, and the Revised Framework. These policies
seek, amongst other things, high quality design and standards of privacy and
amenity.
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/21/3272085
3
Conditions
10. I have imposed standard conditions requiring the development is carried out in
a timely fashion, in accordance with the approved plans. As those approved
plans specify that the external surface materials of the proposal will match the
existing building, I do not consider it necessary to impose a further condition in
this regard. In addition, I have imposed a condition to remove permitted
development rights for the insertion of additional windows and doors in the side
elevations of the proposed development. This is to protect the privacy of the
occupiers of the adjacent properties.
Conclusion
11. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.
Kim Langford Tejrar
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 13 July 2021
by Kim Langford Tejrar LLB (Hons) BSc (Hons) PGDIP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 26 July 2021
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/21/3272085
18 Blenheim Road, Harrow HA2 7AH
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Ms H Vyas against the decision of London Borough of
Harrow.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for ‘single storey front
extension incorporating porch; two storey side to rear extension; single storey rear
extension; external alterations (demolition of attached garage).’
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying
for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The
Appellant alleges that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) behaved unreasonably
in that:
• It prevented or delayed development which should clearly have been
permitted having regard to its accordance with the development plan,
national policy and any other material considerations; and
• It made vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s
impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis.
3. The LPA has made no response to the Appellant’s costs claim.
4. The LPA accurately described the nature of the development within its decision
notice and Officer’s report. The LPA carried out some analysis of the potential
effects of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers by
comparing the proposed depth of the rear extension to suggested depth-limits
for rear extensions contained within Harrow Residential Design Guide
Supplementary Planning Document 2020 (the SPD).
5. The LPA strictly imposed the suggested limits of the SPD and made little to no
assessment of the existing site circumstances, such as the relationship between
the neighbouring properties, and other factors, such as an extant planning
permission. Whilst the advice contained within SPD provides helpful guidance,
should not be applied inflexibly and does not replace a proper assessment of
the individual merits of a proposal. Moreover, this generalised approach is a
Costs Decision APP/M5450/D/21/3272085
2
departure from the clear expectation of the SPD itself that site circumstances
and other factors should be considered.
6. Moreover, the LPA’s reasons for refusal concern the impact of the proposal on
the adjacent property, which itself benefits from an extant permission for a
similar development. Although all proposals must be considered on their own
merits, the LPA provides no reasons why a different approach should be taken
in relation to the appeal proposal. Further, the development resulting from the
extant permission would negate the impacts of the appeal proposal alleged by
the LPA.
7. As such, the LPA’s assessment is generalised and is not supported by objective
analysis and this has resulted in the prevention of development which should
clearly have been permitted in accordance with the development plan, national
policy and other material considerations.
Costs Order
8. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
London Borough of Harrow shall pay to Ms H Vyas, the costs of the appeal
proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be
assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
9. The applicant is now invited to submit to London Borough of Harrow, to whom
a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to
reaching agreement as to the amount.
Kim Langford Tejrar
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.