First floor side and part rear, part single storey extension to a dwelling house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 September 2018 by M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/18/3205168 82 Headstone Lane, Harrow HA2 6HW  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 Anuj Chhabra against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/0719/18, dated 21 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 May 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor side and part rear, part single storey extension to a dwelling house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 84 Headstone Lane, with particular regard to outlook and daylight. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling in a predominantly residential area, within which semi-detached properties of a similar age and style predominate. In common with many properties in the area, the dwelling on the appeal site has been extended. Though in contrast to other properties, the hipped roof has previously been converted to a gable end and a sizeable flat roofed dormer extension has been added to the rear. 4. The proposal is to extend No 82 with a first floor extension above the existing ground floor side extension that was previously converted from a garage and a two storey extension to the rear of the property, partially replacing an existing single storey extension. 5. The neighbouring property, No 84 is set further back from the street than No 82 and consequently the rear elevation of that property projects back further than that on the appeal site. Furthermore, No 84 includes a two storey side projection set above and to the rear of the single storey garage adjacent to the boundary with the appeal property. A bedroom window in the side projection faces on to Headstone Lane. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3205168 2 Character and appearance 6. The appellant considers that the proposed first floor side extension would, by virtue of the 2.5m set back from the front elevation combine with the lower ridge line to give the proposal an appearance of subservience to the host dwelling 7. In this case, the first floor side extension could appear as subordinate to the existing dwelling when viewed in isolation. However, the proposed extension to the previously converted gable would add further to the overall scale and bulk of the dwelling and unbalance the property in relation to the attached semi- detached property, No 80 Headstone Lane. 8. Furthermore, paragraph 6.57 of Harrow Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises that where the property has already been extended by the conversion of a hipped to a gabled roof, as in this instance, a further side extension is inappropriate with regards design, character, bulk and appearance of the local area. While the SPD does not form part of the Development Plan, it is a material consideration to which I afford some weight. 9. I find that when the semi-detached properties, Nos 80 and 82, are viewed as a whole and with the previous roof alterations to the appeal property, the proposed development would appear ill proportioned and unbalanced when viewed from the street to the detriment of the character and appearance of the dwelling on the appeal site. When viewed from the rear the roof of the proposed rear extension cuts across part of the existing rear dormer resulting in an awkward arrangement that would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling. This is contrary to Policy 7.4B of the London Plan, Policy CS1B of the Harrow Core Strategy, Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan and the guidance set out in the SPD, which seek, among other things, to ensure good quality design that is in keeping with local character. Living conditions 10. The Appellant’s statement and Council Officer’s report detail that the proposed extension to the rear of the property would not have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent properties. No 84 is set slightly further back from the street than the appeal property mitigating the impact of the proposed extension shown on the submitted plans as being set off the boundary with No 80 Headstone Lane, therefore I find no reason to disagree. 11. With regards the first floor side extension, I have been directed to paragraph 6.31 of the SPD that advises extensions should not interrupt a 45 degree splay drawn from the nearest corner of the next door dwelling. The Council advises that when this is applied in respect of the side projection of No 84 it is broken by the proposed side extension. 12. It does not follow that in all instances the breaching of this rule will result in a proposed development having an unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the affected property. However, in this instance the impact of the proposed side extension is increased by the gable roof design and the greater set back of No 84, in particular the two storey side extension, Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3205168 3 from the street than the property on the appeal site. As a result, the proposed extension would significantly reduce the daylight enjoyed by occupiers of No 84 with regards the bedroom window in the side projection and the outlook from that window would be dominated by the gable elevation of the proposed extension to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers. 13. As a result of the above, I find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions, with reference to issues of outlook and loss of daylight, of the occupiers of No 84 contrary to Policy 7.6 of the London Plan, Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies and the guidance set out in the SPD. These policies seek to ensure good quality living conditions. 14. At my site visit I noted that a number of properties in the local area had been extended. However, I do not know the circumstances or policies that applied at the time those developments were considered and in any event their presence does not outweigh the harm I have identified. Conclusion 15. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Brooker INSPECTOR