Erection of two storey side, part rear extension with rooflights to front and rear elevation

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 June 2019 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/19/3227716 75 Whitchurch Gardens, Edgware, HA8 6PG • 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 Nicholas Georgiou against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref P/0152/19, dated 13 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 11 March 2019. • The development proposed is erection of two storey side, part rear extension with rooflights to front and rear elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of Whitchurch Gardens; and secondly, the effect of the proposed single storey rear extension on the living conditions of occupiers of 88 Whitchurch Gardens with respect to visual amenity and outlook. Procedural matter 3. The Council’s refusal notice refers to a rear dormer. However, this is not included in the description of development on the application form or on the submitted plans. I have therefore used the appellant’s description of development in my consideration and determination of the appeal. Reasons 4. The appeal dwelling is a traditional semi-detached house set behind a paved frontage. It has a design which is unusual in Whitchurch Gardens with a two storey front projection, separated from the semi-detached pair by a set-back catslide roof with a dormer window at first floor level. The attached pair is, architecturally, a mirror image of No 75. Surrounding dwellings are mostly detached and semi-detached houses of variable designs with many having a more common layout with a two storey bay set adjacent to the party wall. Some have been extended in the past. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/19/3227716 2 5. Owing to the design of the appeal dwelling, the side elevation forms part of the two storey front projection which stands out as an architecturally important feature of the building design, enhanced by the brickwork at ground floor which extends for a short distance onto the side wall. The proposed two storey side extension would be set back from the front projection at first floor but would be flush with it at ground floor. This would blur the distinction and distort the symmetry and proportions of the two storey front projection, detracting from its architectural importance and harming the character and appearance of the dwelling and that of the semi-detached pair. 6. By contrast the proposed set down of the roof and setback of the first floor of the side extension would allow a clear separation between the extension and the two storey front projection above ground floor that would preserve its architectural character and importance. 7. The appellant points out that the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Residential Design Guide (SPD), 2010, only specifically mentions the need for a 1m setback at first floor and a subordinate roof. However, these are minimum requirements. Moreover, the SPD provides guidance that will not necessarily be applicable in every case due to the differing design of dwellings. It is made clear in paragraph 6.45 that the primary considerations are the character of the locality and space around the building. Therefore, where the design of a dwelling is not typical a different approach may be necessary in order to preserve its character, and simply adhering to the guidance may not lead to a satisfactory design. 8. Turning to the single storey rear projection, this would project some 6m beyond the rear elevation of the original dwelling and join an existing single storey rear extension of similar depth. It would replace an existing garage which lies on the shared boundary with No 88. In terms of the proposed footprint I find this acceptable. However, the proposed extension would have a stepped flat roof that would be at odds with the partly pitched roof of the existing extension. In consequence, it would fail to blend satisfactorily with the host dwelling, resulting in an incongruous addition that failed to reflect or integrate satisfactorily with the existing design. 9. It is concluded on the first main issue that the proposed extension would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of Whitchurch Gardens. In consequence, it would conflict with Policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (LP), 2016, Policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy, 2012, and Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies (DMP), 2013, and with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the SPD which, taken, together expect new development to be of a high quality of design that responds positively to the local area and exhibits high architectural quality that is of a proportion, composition and scale that enhances the area and comprises details that complement the local architectural character. 10. Turning to the effect on living conditions, the proposed single storey rear extension would occupy approximately the same footprint as an existing single storey garage. It would lie in part adjacent to a single storey garage at No 88 but would project some 3m beyond it. Nevertheless, the separation between the two properties including a high hedge adjacent to the shared boundary in the Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/19/3227716 3 garden of No 88 and the distance between the proposed extension and the main habitable rooms in No 88 would ensure that there was no significant loss of visual amenity or outlook for occupiers. 11. It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed single storey rear extension would have no significant effect on visual amenity or outlook and would result in no material harm to the living conditions of occupiers at 88 Whitchurch Gardens. In consequence, there would be no conflict with LP Policy 7.6, DMP Policy DM1, the NPPF or the SPD insofar as they expect new development to secure satisfactory living conditions for existing occupiers, including in terms of visual amenity and outlook. 12. Notwithstanding my findings with respect to the second main issue or the lack of any objection to the proposed rooflights, this would not alter or outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Therefore, for the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the reasons for refusal on an earlier planning application for a similar development and the personal circumstances of the appellant, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K E Down INSPECTOR