Erection of a double-storey side and rear extension, single-storey rear extension, loft conversion and front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2019 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/19/3226241 38 Durley Avenue, Pinner, HA5 1JQ • 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 Umar Khan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref P/0056/19, dated 5 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 4 March 2019. • The development proposed is the erection of a double-storey side and rear extension, single-storey rear extension, loft conversion and front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a double-storey side and rear extension, single-storey rear extension, loft conversion and front porch at 38 Durley Avenue, Pinner, HA5 1JQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/0056/19, dated 5 January 2019, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan and Drg Nos 1 Rev 1, 2 Rev 2, 3 Rev 1, and 4 Rev 2. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The roof area of the single-storey extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. 5) 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 windows/dormer windows/doors shall be installed in the flank walls of the development hereby permitted. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/19/3226241 2 Procedural Matter 2. The application was amended through the submission of revised drawings dated Feb 2019, which I have relied upon. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the two-storey side and rear extension on the character and appearance of 38 Durley Avenue and the street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling within a residential, sub-urban area comprising properties of broadly similar age and type. Despite this, I saw that many have been changed beyond their original form with a variety of extensions and alterations, including at No 38, which has an existing two-storey side extension that appears as a fully integrated part of the building. As such, I could detect little sense of uniformity or regimentation to the street scene, which is varied. Neither could I detect any retained symmetry to the appeal property and its neighbour at No 40, which has also been altered to the front and side. 5. The proposal would include a further, two-storey side extension to No 38. This would be recessed behind the front elevation of the property and built with a hipped roof over that would mimic the form of the existing but with a lower ridge. In this regard the proposal would comply with the Council’s guidelines for two-storey side extensions, as given within the Harrow Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2010. 6. Although the combined form of the side extensions would approximately double the width of the original dwelling, there is no symmetry to the existing building to be harmed as a result. Moreover, the new addition would be entirely proportionate to the existing building, and its subordinate form would ensure an appropriate balance to the overall appearance of No 38. 7. The property would appear larger than others along Durley Avenue, but due to the width of the plot, which is greater than some, and its relationship with No 36, which is more deeply recessed from the road frontage, there is ample scope to successfully assimilate the proposed side extension into the street scene without impacting harmfully upon the established pattern of development. The side extension would project at two-storey to the rear, but the building, although large, would appear well-composed within its residential context. 8. Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal would appear well related to the existing dwelling without harm to the character or appearance of the street scene. As such there would be no conflict with Policy CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), or with Policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (2016) insofar as they all seek to ensure that there is a high standard of design for new development and respect for the character of the surroundings. Neither would there be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it relates to similar matters. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/19/3226241 3 Conditions 9. The Council has suggested several conditions, some of which I have changed slightly for clarity and enforceability. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. In the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area a condition is necessary to control the external materials that would be used. 10. In order to safeguard the privacy of adjoining occupiers, conditions are necessary to restrict any further openings to the side elevations of the extensions, and to prevent the flat roof of the rear extension from being used for any outside amenity purpose. 11. The site backs on to, but is not within, a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). However, the proposal would be some distance from the SINC. It is not located within a locally important habitat and there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the extension of this dwelling would impact upon any biodiversity interests. In these circumstances, conditions requiring mitigation or specific enhancements to a locally important habitat would not be relevant to the development to be permitted, or reasonable. Such conditions would therefore fail the tests given for the use of conditions within the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, having regard to all other matters raised and in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR