To ‘carry out a first floor side extension set back 1 metre from the primary elevation, using material to match each of the elevations as identified on the supporting documents. To carry out a loft extension including a rear dormer’ Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2019 by T J Burnham BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/19/3224832 98 Elms Road, Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 6BT • 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 Peter Lynch against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref P/5383/18, dated 4 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 February 2019. • The development is described as to ‘carry out a first floor side extension set back 1 metre from the primary elevation, using material to match each of the elevations as identified on the supporting documents. To carry out a loft extension including a rear dormer’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Part E of the appeal form states that the description of development has not changed from the application form but nevertheless a different wording has been entered, which also differs from the council’s description. For clarity I have adopted the council’s description ‘First floor side extension, alterations and extension to roof, rear dormer’ as it succinctly describes the development. 3. The appellant has suggested the rear dormer window is permitted development and does not require planning permission. However, I am required to consider the scheme as a whole and this is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is open to the appellant to apply to have the matter determined under sections 191 or 192 of the Act. Any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the existing dwelling. Reasons 5. The appeal property is one of a pair of hipped roof semi detached houses in a predominantly residential area where buildings vary in size, type and style. However, as a pair of semi-detached houses the appeal property and 100 Elms Road have retained their original hipped roof form and a clear sense of balance and symmetry. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/19/3224832 2 6. The appeal relates to a revised scheme following a previous appeal (Ref APP/M5450/D/18/3193770). The scheme has been modified by setting back the two-storey side extension by 1 metre from the main front elevation and also through providing a set down from the ridgeline. The width of the rear dormer window has been reduced. The two-storey side extension would however, as previously, incorporate a gabled roof. 7. The introduction of a gabled roof would unbalance the appearance of the pair of houses and remove the sense of symmetry causing harm to the character and appearance of the area and the existing dwelling. It would conflict with detailed guidance in the Councils Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide (SPD) which, among other things, states that it is desirable for a two-storey extension to be roofed to reflect the design of the existing roof. 8. To the rear, the dormer window would have a flat roof and would occupy almost the entire rear roof slope of the house other than the roof slope associated with the two-storey side extension. This would visually dominate the appearance of the rear of the house. The wide and shallow window proposed in the dormer window would be out of proportion with and fail to line up with the windows below, compounding the visual harm which would be caused. Whilst this part of the proposal would not be visible from public vantage points within the street scene, it would be evident from the rear gardens of nearby dwellings. From these vantage points the proposed dormer by reason of its scale, bulk and fenestration would detract significantly from the appearance of the house. 9. The set back of the side extension from the front elevation would address a specific concern of the previous inspector and I note that materials to match are proposed. However, the revised proposals would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and the existing dwelling due to the discordant roof design of the two storey side extension and the bulk and poor visual appearance of the dormer window. 10. Consequently the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and the existing dwelling and would be in conflict with Policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (2016), Policy CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policy DM1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies (2013) which require that development should achieve a high standard of design and architecture and respond positively to local context. There would also be conflict with guidance in the SPD. Other Matters 11. The appellant has brought a two storey side extension to my attention at 92 Elms Road in support of the appeal. Few details of this scheme have been provided so I cannot be certain that the particular circumstances relating to this property are the same as the appeal site and I do not afford this significant weight. However, it does appear that No 92 may have been originally built with a gable roof design, with a subsequent gable extension to follow this roof form. In any case, this appeal has been determined on its own merits. Conclusion 12. For the reasons above, the appeal is dismissed. T J Burnham INSPECTOR