Described on the planning application form as ‘part double storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 October 2018 by T A Wheeler BSc (Hons) T&RP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/18/3207017 74 Woodhall Gate, Pinner HA5 4TY  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 C Breen against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref: P/1066/18, dated 12 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 May 2018.  The development proposed is described on the planning application form as ‘part double storey side extension’. This decision is issued in accordance with Section 56(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and supersedes the decision issued on 14 November 2018. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for a single storey front and first floor front extension at 74 Woodhall Gate, Pinner HA5 4TY in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: P/1066/18, dated 12 March 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawing: 74WG/05092017/REV-E. 3) The external materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Procedural Matters 2. The Council altered the description of the development to ’single storey front and first floor front extension’. The appellant uses the Council’s description on the appeal form. I consider that the amended description accurately describes the development and have used it in my decision. 3. The appellant submitted an amended plan (ref: 74WG/05091017/REV-E-A) as an appendix to their statement of case. The purpose of this plan was to clarify that the proposals would not include a single storey element. Therefore I have not referred to this plan as an approved drawing. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3207017 2 Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a 2-storey, detached property with a front facing porch, which appears to be an addition to the original building. The property forms part of what would originally have been a matching pair with 76 Woodhall Gate. The two properties are linked by a by a single storey, flat roofed garage. There is a similar pair of detached properties on the opposite side the road. 6. Woodhall Gate forms part of a larger estate comprised largely of 1960s and 1970s property. The surrounding area is mainly residential, with the majority of properties being detached or semi-detached. There was a notable variance in terms of design of the surrounding properties, including evidence of a number of extensions which included both side and front extensions. The setting of the appeal site can be described as quiet and suburban. 7. The Council is concerned that the proposed two storey front extension would harm the character and appearance of the existing property and the surrounding area. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide 2010 (the SPD) provides guidance for extensions and alterations to dwellings. 8. With regard to two storey side extensions, the SPD advises that an acceptable approach can be achieved by setting back the extension by at least one metre from the front of the dwelling, and stepping down the roof line from the existing. It does not offer specific advice in relation to front extensions. The appeal proposal would not project forward of the main front elevation, and would be set back the same distance as the existing ground floor porch. 9. In order to achieve a pitched roof to the extension, a front facing gable roof is proposed. This would have a similar angle of pitch to the main front facing gable, but would be subsidiary in scale, and recessed. In this respect it accords with the guidance contained in the Council’s SPD. 10. It is acknowledged that the original symmetry of Nos 74 and 76 would be eroded as a consequence of the proposal. However, this does not make it unsympathetic to the existing dwelling, or incongruous and harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As already identified, within the surrounding area there is a wide variety of houses types. Viewed in this context the appeal proposal would represent a subservient and acceptable addition to the existing property. 11. I therefore find that the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area would be acceptable. Thus it follows that the proposal would be in compliance with Policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan 2016, Policy CS1B of the Harrow Core Strategy 2012, Policy DM1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies 2013 and guidance contained within the SPD. When taken together these policies and guidance seek, amongst other things, to ensure development is of a high design and that extensions respect their host building. In addition, the proposal would also comply with one of the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) core planning principles of seeking to secure high quality design. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3207017 3 12. Reference has also been made in the Council’s decision notice to Policy D1 of the Draft London Plan 2017, which similarly seeks to promote high quality design. The draft plan is scheduled to be considered at an Examination in Public in January 2019. In view of the stage in the plan’s preparation I have accorded limited weight to it in my decision. Conditions 12. The conditions suggested by the Council have been considered against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by Planning Practice Guidance. They have been found to be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of this case. 13. In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in order to provide certainty. A condition relating to materials is necessary in the interests of the visual appearance of the proposed development and the surrounding area. Conclusion 14. For the above reasons I therefore conclude that, subject to appropriate planning conditions, the appeal should be allowed. Tim Wheeler INSPECTOR