Single storey side, rear and infill extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 September 2018 by M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/18/3208695 16 Jellicoe Gardens, Stanmore HA7 3NS  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 Mrs Patel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/1703/18, dated 19 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 June 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey side, rear and infill extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:  the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area;  the living conditions of the occupiers of No 18 with regards to privacy and outlook; and,  trees on the appeal site that are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a three storey end-of-terrace dwelling in an area predominated by detached properties. The building line of the terrace steps backwards with the appeal property situated furthest forward and the adjoining property, No 18 Jellicoe Gardens, situated further back from the road. The adjacent property, No 14 Jellicoe Gardens, is a detached property and is stepped back from the appeal property. 4. The proposed single storey extension would wrap around the side and all of the rear elevation. The scheme would project approximately 6 metres from the rear elevation of the property; the rear extension would be the full width of the original dwelling house and the proposed side extension. Windows, including Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3208695 2 folding patio doors, are proposed on the rear and side elevations of the extension. 5. A certificate of lawful proposed use or development (CLD) has been granted1 for a side extension of similar dimensions to that proposed here and confirmation2 from the Council that prior approval is not required for a rear extension of similar, but not the same, dimensions to that proposed here. 6. The appellant stated that the extensions referred to above could be erected without the need for planning permission. I accept that, having regard to the above, the evidence before me suggests that these works could proceed. 7. However, the extensions previously referred to differ from the development subject of this appeal, in particular with regards windows on the boundaries to neighbouring properties. The scheme permitted by prior approval would create two narrow elongated rooms, projecting 6 metres from the rear elevation of the appeal property. Furthermore, the side extension would not extend beyond the rear elevation of the appeal property. 8. As such, the plans before me indicate that the development would amount to a significantly different undertaking compared with that which could have been carried out as permitted development. In light of the above I find that the appeal proposal amounts to a comprehensive side and rear extension, rather than a small in fill extension as suggested by the appellant, and I have determined the appeal on that basis. 9. When viewed from the street only the side extension would be visible. It would appear well proportioned and integrated with the form of the original dwelling. It would be well separated from the side boundary at this point and would sit comfortably in the street scene. 10. However, the proposal would dominate the rear of the appeal property due to its excessive size. It would envelop the entire footprint of existing ground floor by wrapping around the property to the side and rear. The combined depth and width of the proposal would be out of scale with the host dwelling, resulting in a development that would dominate and subsume the original dwelling, causing harm to its character and appearance. 11. The existing mature landscaping and boundary treatment offers some screening to the appeal property and I observed at my site visit that the proposal would only be visible from adjoining gardens and properties Consequently, I find any harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area would be limited. 12. Nevertheless, for the reasons detailed above, I conclude that the appeal scheme would harm the character and appearance of the host property. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (CS), Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (DM), and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (LP), insofar as they all seek to achieve a high standard of design in all development. I also find conflict with the Harrow Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 1 P/5722/17 2 P/0084/18/PRIOR Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3208695 3 which seeks to achieve a consistently high standard of design and layout in residential development, including extensions. Living conditions 13. The proposal would extend approximately 6m from the rear elevation of No 16 along the shared boundary with No 18. As this adjoining property is set further back from the street the projection beyond its rear elevation would be a little less than 6m. 14. The appeal scheme includes windows in both side elevations which would look directly towards the neighbouring properties. One of these windows would directly overlook the patio area of the garden of No 18. The existing boundary treatment would afford protection to the privacy of the occupiers of No 18, provided that it could be permanently retained. The use of obscure glazing could further mitigate overlooking from this window. 15. However, the appellant has indicated that the window would provide ventilation for the kitchen. It is therefore likely that it would be opened frequently, negating the benefit of the obscure glazing. In any event, paragraph 6.22 of the SPD states that large windows sited within 3m of the boundary are unacceptable as the effects of perceived overlooking are unlikely to be avoided even if obscure-glazed and non-opening. In my view, this aspect of the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 18. 16. As a result of the flat roofed design, the appeal scheme would not have any notable overshadowing or overbearing impact on the occupiers of No 18. However, although the principle outlook from the rear of this adjoining house over its garden would be unaffected, there would be some loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure for the occupiers, due to the projection of the appeal scheme along the shared boundary. This adds to my concern about the overall effects of the proposal on the occupants of No 18. 17. In respect of No 14, the windows in the side extension would look towards the blank wall of No 14’s garage. The glazed patio doors that would look towards the shared boundary with No 14 would be set sufficiently away from the boundary to prevent any unacceptable loss of privacy. As such the appeal scheme would not impact upon the privacy of the occupiers of No 14. 18. Concluding on this main issue, I find that the proposed extension would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 18 arising from a loss of privacy and outlook. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CS1 of the CS, Policy DM1 of the DM, and with Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the LP, insofar as these policies seek to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Trees 19. The Council provided a plan showing the location of trees and group of trees that are subject of Tree Preservation Orders in and around the appeal site. This shows one protected tree to the side of the property and one in the rear garden. 20. However, on my site visit I did not see either of these trees. It therefore appears that they have already been removed. While there is mature planting Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3208695 4 in the garden and trees to the rear boundary I could not identify a tree in a position that related to the TPO plan or that would be affected by the proposed development. I am therefore not persuaded that an arboricultural report is necessary. 21. I therefore find that the proposed development would not harm any protected trees and in this respect the proposal would not conflict with Policy 7.21B of the LP and Policy DM22 of the DM that, amongst other things, seek to protect trees. Conclusion 22. I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the living conditions of the occupiers of No 18. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Mark Brooker INSPECTOR