Demolition of existing side/rear kitchen extension; erection of replacement side/rear single storey extension, accessibility ramp and associated works
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Heritage & Conservation
Green Belt Policy
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 June 2023
by K L Robbie BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 9 August 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/22/3313254
North Lodge, Brookshill, Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 6RT
• 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 Sunil Nayar against the decision of the Council of the London
Borough of Harrow.
• The application Ref P/2880/22, dated 5 August 2022, was refused by notice dated
7 October 2022.
• The development proposed is the demolition of existing side/rear kitchen extension;
erection of replacement side/rear single storey extension, accessibility ramp and
associated works.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of
existing side/rear kitchen extension; erection of replacement side/rear single
storey extension, accessibility ramp and associated works at North Lodge,
Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 6RT in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref P/2880/22, dated 5 August 2022, and the plans submitted with
it, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: Location Plan; NL PA03 EX 01 Existing
Ground Floor Plan; NL PA03 EX 1.1 Existing Front / Rear Elevations; NL
PA03 EX 1.2 Existing Side Elevations; NL PA03 EX 01 Existing Roof Plan;
NL PA03 GA01 Proposed Ground Floor Plan; NL PA03 GA 1.1 Proposed
Front / Rear Elevations; NL PA03 GA 1.2 Proposed Side Elevations; NL
PA03 GA 02 Proposed Roof Plan.
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.
Applications for costs
2. An application for costs has been made my Mr Sunil Nayar against the London
Borough of Harrow. This is the subject of a separate Decision.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are:
• Whether or not the proposed development would amount to
inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/22/3313254
2
National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any other
relevant planning policies; and
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the appeal property (non-designated heritage asset), the
setting of nearby listed buildings, locally listed Park and Garden and the
Harrow Weald Park Conservation Area.
Reasons
Whether Inappropriate Development
4. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. Harrow’s Core Strategy 2012 (Core
Strategy) Policy CS1(F) and Policy DM16 of the Harrow’s Development
Management Policies 2013 (DMP) set out the Council’s approach to
development in the Green Belt which is consistent with that of the Framework.
5. These policies states that the Council will resist inappropriate development (as
defined by the Framework) unless very special circumstances can be
demonstrated. Paragraph 149, of the Framework, establishes that buildings in
the Green Belt would be inappropriate unless they would meet a listed
exception. Paragraph 149(c) explains that the extension or alteration of a
building would not be inappropriate provided that it would not result in a
disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling.
6. The Framework does not define ‘disproportionate’. Nor do the development
plan policies cited above. As such, consideration of proportionality is a matter
of planning judgement taking into account a range of factors including height,
floorspace, volume, design and the configuration of the plot, dwelling and
proposal.
7. The host dwelling is a detached stone-built lodge house, situated on Brookshill.
The plot is enclosed primarily by high hedges on all sides. It is located adjacent
to Harrow Weald Park and the listed gate piers at the park’s entrance and is
viewed against a backdrop of mature trees.
8. The proposed extension would be located to the rear of the property and would
replace an existing smaller timber-clad pitched roofed extension. It would be
flat roofed, lower than the crenelated parapet which sits around the cruciform
element of the building and would be built of stone to match the existing
dwelling. The extension would represent an increase of between 39%
(appellant) and 43% (Council) over the floorspace of the original dwelling.
9. The Council’s officer report advocates that as a rule of thumb extensions of
between 20% - 30% increase in footprint, floorspace and volume (my
emphasis) are considered generally acceptable. However, this is an informal
rule of thumb and is not set out in any of the Council’s planning policies or
guidance with which I have been provided. Furthermore, I have only been
provided with floorspace and footprint figures and not volumetric figures by the
Council. These differ from the calculations provided by the appellant in his
planning statement provided to the Council at the time of the planning
application, which also include a volumetric calculation.
10. Although the proposal would be materially larger than the existing extension,
the proposal would represent a relatively modest addition to the living
accommodation. The visual impact of the development on the host dwelling in
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/22/3313254
3
its context would be limited and even when compared with the existing
extension would not, in visual terms, appear disproportionate to the size of the
original building. Nor, in the absence of compelling development plan support
would it be disproportionate in numerical terms whether measured by footprint,
floorspace or volume.
11. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in
the Green Belt and would accord with Core Strategy Policy CS1(F) and DMP
Policies DM1 and DM16 and Policy G2 of the London Plan and the provisions of
the Framework.
Character and Appearance
12. The appeal site is located in the Harrow Weald Park Conservation Area
(HWPCA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) requires that, in making decisions on planning
applications and appeals within a Conservation Area, special attention is paid to
the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the
area. The appeal site is also in proximity to a pair of Grade II listed gate piers.
Section 66(1) the 1990 Act states that in considering whether to grant planning
permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, that
special regard is had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting
or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
13. The significance of the HWPCA is derived from the area’s historical
development associated with the Harrow Weald Park Estate (the Estate). The
significance of the Grade II listed gate piers is derived from their location at the
entrance to the Estate. They are separated from the appeal site by a high
laurel hedge. The appeal dwelling is locally listed as a 19th century lodge house
built in connection with the Estate which is of importance to the Borough. It is
stone built in a cruciform plan with Gothic detailing.
14. The proposal would replace a smaller existing extension. It would be deeper
and wider than the existing extension and would have a flat roof. Although the
original cruciform floorplan form of the building would be lost, the current
extension has already eroded that form. Furthermore, the proposal’s flat roof
would mean that the pitched cruciform roof plan would not be altered.
Moreover, the proposal would remove elements of the existing extension which
currently obscure parts of the cruciform roof and crenelations of the original
building which would be a benefit of the proposal. Given the location of the
proposal on the rear of the property and its flat roofed design it would appear
subservient to the main dwelling and as a result, it would not appeal
excessively bulky or overly large in its context.
15. Although the proposed extension would be closer to the boundary than the
original house and the current extension, the proposal would be set back from
and clearly separated from the gate piers and would not affect their
significance. Furthermore, there would be limited visibility of the proposal from
Brookshill. The proposed extension would be constructed of matching
materials, with window openings to the rear. Consequently, it would not result
in a significant change to the character of the dwelling from this viewpoint.
16. There is concern that the boundary hedge along the southern boundary of the
site may not be a permanent feature. However, I have no evidence before me
that it is in poor health nor is it under threat of removal. Furthermore, I
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/22/3313254
4
observed a high close boarded fence behind the hedge providing a further
permanent visual barrier between the appeal property and the listed gates.
17. Given that the appeal property’s operational association with the Estate has
long since been lost, the significance of the dwelling within the HWPCA would
not be diminished as a result of the proposal. As the proposal would be visible
from very few vantage points from within the HWPCA, the proposal would
result in a neutral effect on its character and appearance.
18. Given the scale and siting of the proposal, I am satisfied from all I have seen
and read that it would have a neutral impact on the significance of these
heritage assets. Accordingly, it would meet the requirements of S66 (1) and
S72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
which require me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving the
character or appearance of the conservation area and preserving the listed
building and its setting.
19. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not appear incongruous or
obtrusive in its context and would preserve or enhance the character or
appearance of the HWPCA and the setting of the Grade II listed gate piers, and
the significance of the locally listed building. Consequently, the proposal would
accord with Core Strategy Policy CS1(B and D), DMP Policies DM1 and DM7 and
London Plan Policy D3. In combination, these seek to protect, conserve and
where appropriate enhance the significance of these designate and non-
designated heritage asserts. The proposal would also meet the Framework’s
aim to conserve and enhance the historic environment. There would also be no
conflict with the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning
Document.
Conditions
20. I have had regard to the Council’s suggested conditions, in the event of the
appeal being allowed, in the light of advice in the Planning Practice Guidance
(PPG) and I have considered them against the six tests, as outlined within the
Framework and the PPG. In the interests of proper planning and to provide
certainty I have recommended the standard time limit condition and specified
that the development should be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans. In order to protect the character and appearance of the conservation
area, a condition requiring that matching materials are used in the
development is necessary.
Conclusion
21. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition
harmful to the Green Belt. I have identified that the development would not be
inappropriate development in the Green Belt and consequently no very special
circumstances are necessary to justify a planning permission. Furthermore, I
have found that there would be no harm to the heritage assets identified.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, having considered the development
plan as a whole and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should
be allowed.
K L Robbie
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 14 June 2023
by K L Robbie BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 9 August 2023
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/22/3313254
North Lodge, Brookshill, Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 6RT
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr S Nayar for a full award of costs against the Council of
the London Borough of Harrow.
• The appeal was against the refusal to grant planning permission for the demolition of
existing side/rear kitchen extension; erection of replacement side/rear singl e storey
extension, accessibility ramp and associated works.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in part, in the terms set out
below.
Reasons
2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying
for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The guidance is clear in setting out the circumstances in which a Local Planning
Authority (LPA) could be vulnerable to an award of costs against it. It also goes
on the advice on the circumstances in which a local planning authority’s
handling of a planning application prior to an appeal may lead to an award of
costs. In this instance the costs application is made on both procedural and
substantive grounds which the LPA have not contested. I have determined this
costs application accordingly.
4. The applicant claims that the LPA acted unreasonably because it failed to
provide the applicant’s agent with information relating to their planning
application in a timely manner both prior to and following its determination.
Thus, it is stated, the Council’s officer report and consultation responses were
only made available to the appellant at the appeal stage, following the refusal
of the planning application, which was not, in any event, determined within the
prescribed time period.
5. Although LPAs are under no obligation to publish officer reports, it is good
practice to do so, and applicants can reasonably expect to be able to
understand how the LPA reached their conclusions. Where appeals proceed on
the basis of the Planning Inspectorate’s streamlined Householder Appeals
Service procedures, as in the case before me, the Council’s case is set out
within their officer report rather than a subsequent statement. Therefore, the
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/22/3313254
2
value of an officer report allows an appellant an early understanding of the
reasoning and justification underpinning the refusal reason(s).
6. The applicant has provided emails relating to the planning application and
claims that the LPA failed to respond or cooperate in respect of the issues
raised. It is also claimed that the LPA also failed to adhere to deadlines to
determine the application. In addition, it is argued, that in not publishing an
officer report in a timely manner, the reasons for refusal were unsupported by
objective analysis.
7. The PPG gives as an example of unreasonable behaviour a local planning
authority’s delay in providing information and only supplying information at
appeal when it was previously requested to do so at the application stage but
had not provided that information. The path along which this appeal proceeds
has compounded the Council’s failure to publish and share the officer report
with the appellant at an early stage and has necessitated the appellant
submitting a second grounds of appeal to address the Council’s detailed
reasoning.
8. As a result of these actions, the appeal had to be made without sight of officer
report and associated consultation responses. Whilst the applicant was aware
of the reasons for refusal on the decision notice and were able to make their
initial statement based on these, in terms of fairness the applicant was given
the opportunity to provide a further statement as part of the appeal process
once the officer report and consultee responses were made available. As such,
on procedural grounds, the Council has displayed unreasonable behaviour
resulting in unnecessary expense in relation to the appellant’s agent’s time in
the preparation and submission of the second statement addressing the
content of the officer report.
9. The appellant’s costs application on procedural grounds is wide-ranging and
details a range of frustrations with, and the failings of, the Council in its
handling of the planning application. From what I have seen and read, the
determination of the planning application was chaotic, displayed poor customer
service and was far removed from the spirit of the PPG. There was considerable
discrepancy between the date of the decision and the date of the Council’s
officer report with the decision notice initially appearing to have been
backdated so as to appear as if determined within the prescribed time period,
although this was subsequently rectified once the appeal had been lodged.
10. The applicant’s substantive case is made on the grounds that the LPA’s decision
was unsupported by any objective analysis, relying instead on vague,
generalised and inaccurate assertions and that the Council has prevented
development that should clearly be permitted. The absence of an officer report
provided in a timely manner meant that the appeal was submitted without
sight of the Council’s detailed reasoning, leading to the appellant’s claim that
the Council has relied upon vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about
the proposal’s impact.
11. The poor customer service and the failure of the LPA to provide the applicant
with their officer report and consultation responses at the time of their decision
has led to unnecessary time and expense by the applicant in acquiring these
and producing an additional statement for the appeal which would not have
been necessary had the information been available to them in a timely manner.
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/22/3313254
3
Thus, on these substantive grounds, the application for an award of costs
succeeds in part to the same extent as that on procedural grounds.
12. The applicant’s claim that the proposal should have been clearly permitted,
having regard to its accordance with the development plan, is however, without
merit. Whilst I have not agreed with the LPA’s reasoning, they were entitled to
exercise planning judgement with regard to whether or not the extension was a
disproportionate addition, even if the question of what is disproportionate is not
backed up by development plan policy or guidance.
13. However, whilst the appeal may not have been avoided, the appellant has
incurred unnecessary expense arising from the Council’s failure to make
available in a timely manner the officer report and other matters relating to
their decision on the planning application. For the reasons given above,
unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has
occurred and a partial award of costs is therefore warranted.
Costs Order
14. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Council of the London Borough of Harrow shall pay to Mr S Nayar, the costs of
the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision, limited to
those costs relating to the procedural and substantive grounds relating to the
production of a second grounds of appeal statement; such costs to be assessed
in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
15. The applicant is now invited to submit to the Council of the London Borough of
Harrow whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with
a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.
K L Robbie
INSPECTOR
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.