First floor extension over garage and alterations to porch
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 September 2022
by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19th April 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/22/3303177
12 Kelvin Crescent, Harrow, HA3 6DP
• 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 Oladeji Abdul Akeem Kuku against the decision of the Council
of the London Borough of Harrow.
• The application Ref P/0530/22, dated 21 February 2022, was refused by notice dated
12 May 2022.
• The development proposed is first floor extension over garage and alterations to porch.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. The description of development is taken from the application form. The
Council’s decision notice describes the proposed development as “Single storey
front infill extension. First floor side extension.”
Main Issue
3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the
character and appearance of the area.
Reasons
4. The appeal property is an extended two storey detached dwelling with a single
storey, flat-roofed attached garage to the side. The dwelling is located towards
the end of a cul-de-sac and is set back from the road behind a small parking
area and has a garden to the rear.
5. The surrounding area is residential and is characterised by the presence of two
storey detached dwellings set back from the road behind short front gardens
and/or parking areas and with longer gardens to the rear.
6. Whilst dwellings are located relatively close to one another, the front gardens
and/or parking areas combine with the presence of gaps between dwellings,
including above single storey elements, to provide for a sense of spaciousness.
7. During my site visit I noted that, whilst many dwellings in the area have been
altered and/or extended, such changes tend to appear in keeping with and
subservient to the host property and in keeping with the surrounding area.
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/22/3303177
2
8. The proposed development would include a first floor extension to the side of
the appeal property. I find that when combined with the existing first floor
extension to the other side of the dwelling, the proposal would result in
additions of such scale and volume as to overwhelm and subsume the original
appearance of the host dwelling.
9. Rather than appear subservient, the proposed extension would, due to its
height, scale and minimal set back from the front elevation, add considerable
bulk to the appeal property. I find that it would result in the creation of an
overly-wide dwelling that would unduly dominate its plot and appear out of
keeping with neighbouring dwellings that do not appear unduly dominant in
their surroundings.
10.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated by the prominent first
floor siting of the proposal such that it would draw attention to itself as a
visually obtrusive and incongruous addition.
11.Further to the above, the proposed extension would fill a gap between the
appeal property and its neighbour, Number 10 Kelvin Crescent. This would
reduce the identified spacious qualities of the area and in so doing, it would
emphasise the prominence and undue dominance of the proposed development
within the wider street scene.
12.Taking the above into account, the proposed development would harm the
character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy D3; to Core Strategy1 Policy CS1; to
DMP2 Policy DM1 and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document:
Residential Design Guide (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to
protect local character.
Conclusion
13.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.
N McGurk
INSPECTOR
1 Reference: Harrow Core Strategy (2012).
2 Reference: Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.