First floor side extension plus first floor rear extension plus loft conversion with rear dormer and minor internal and external alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2023 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th May 2023 Appeal Reference: APP/M5450/D/23/3315288 179 Uxbridge Road, Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 6TP • 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 C. Lindsay against the decision of Harrow Council. • The application (reference P/3675/22, dated 24 October 2022) was refused by notice dated 19 December 2022. • The development proposed is described in the application form as a “first floor side extension plus first floor rear extension plus loft conversion with rear dormer and minor internal and external alterations”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a “first floor side extension plus first floor rear extension plus loft conversion with rear dormer and minor internal and external alterations”, at 179 Uxbridge Road, Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 6TP, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference P/3675/22, dated 24 October 2022), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions. Main issue 2. The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing appearance or loss of sunlight or daylight). Reasons 3. The appeal site is located in a mainly residential area, to the north of the centre of Harrow, where there are extensive residential suburbs that have grown up in the northern part of London. Uxbridge Road, the A410, links Stanmore and Hatch End and, in the vicinity of the appeal site, development has taken place along the main road network. This part of Uxbridge Road runs approximately east-west and the site is close to the junction with the A409, which is a busy junction laid out on a large roundabout. 4. The appeal site is one of a number of properties on the southern frontage of the road, to the west of the roundabout, that have access directly on to the Appeal Decision: APP/M5450/D/23/3315288 2 main road, as do others houses on the northern frontage opposite. These houses are mainly larger homes on substantial plots, some of which have been extended and improved over the years. Nevertheless, a group of houses to the west of the appeal site has been developed with access from the south, off a side road. These are smaller houses, backing on to the main road. 5. Number 179 Uxbridge Road is an attractive home in a traditional style that occupies most of the width of its plot, as do others in the frontage. The house is a two-storey building under a main hipped roof, with a side section that is similar in design and a single-storey, flat-roofed extension at the rear. The building is roughly aligned with its neighbours (although the houses do not adhere to a precise “building line” on the frontage). The rear extension is aligned with the rear of number 181 but it projects beyond the rear elevation of number 177, even though that house has also been extended in the past. 6. It is now proposed to add to the existing accommodation at number 179, mainly by the construction of a first floor side and rear extension above most of the existing ground floor area. The extensions would also include a loft conversion, incorporating a new rear dormer, together with associated internal and external alterations. 7. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history (while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change), although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. 8. The ‘NPPF’ is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, which includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new residential development. 9. Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. In particular, Policy D3 of ‘The London Plan’ (dated March 2021) promotes a “design-led approach” to development and identifies some important design criteria, including the need to “deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity”. 10. Similarly, Policy CS1 of the ‘Harrow Core Strategy’ (dated February 2012) includes, as an “overarching policy”, the prevention of harm to the character of suburban areas (Policy CS1.B), while Policy DM1 of the ‘Development Management Policies’ (dated July 2013) also aims at achieving high standards of design and layout and includes a specific protection for the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 11. The Council’s ‘Residential Design Guide’ (adopted on 15 December 2010), is also relevant, although it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan. 12. The proposed extensions and alterations would have only a limited effect on the streetscene. The new flat roofed section, at the apex of pitched roof slopes that imitate the existing structure, would not be unduly dominant or intrusive and would be in keeping with the existing design, even when viewed from the Appeal Decision: APP/M5450/D/23/3315288 3 side or rear of the building. It must be acknowledged that the proposed rear dormer would occupy a significant part of the new rear roof slope, but it would not be dissimilar to many other such structures in suburban contexts and it would not be so intrusive as to be unacceptable in design terms. 13. In short, I have formed the opinion that the proposed development would not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the host building or its surroundings. 14. Turning to the impact of the proposals on neighbours’ amenities, I have noted that reference is made in the submissions to “the 45 degree code” but this is a matter of design guidance rather than a strict rule. Each proposal must be considered on its merits and in this case, I have taken account of the almost due southerly orientation of the rear elevations of the buildings and the large gardens and building sizes that typify this part of Uxbridge Road. 15. The additional depth that is proposed for the side section of the house would have an effect on the outlook from the rear part of the neighbouring property but it would not be so intrusive, in my view, as to justify a refusal of planning permission. Nor would it overshadow the neighbouring property (or reduce sunlight generally) to an unacceptable degree. 16. Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension would be a useful addition to the accommodation at 179 Uxbridge Road. The contribution that the appeal scheme would make to the provision of residential accommodation in the locality, even though it would be limited, weighs in favour of the appeal. I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with the Development Plan and I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted, subject to conditions. Although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 17. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of the conditions suggested by the Council in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). I have concluded that conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained. Roger C. Shrimplin INSPECTOR Appeal Decision: APP/M5450/D/23/3315288 4 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings (all annotated “PLANNING 22.10.2022”): drawing number 22_065_S0 (Site Plan / Site Location Plan - Existing); drawing number 22_065_S1 (Existing Plans – Ground Floor Plan); drawing number 22_065_S2 (Existing Plans – First Floor Plan & Roof Plan); drawing number 22_065_S3 (Existing Elevations); drawing number 22_065_S4 (Existing Sections); drawing number 22_065_P0 (Site Plan / Site Location Plan - Proposed); drawing number 22_065_P1 (Proposed Plans – Ground Floor Plan); drawing number 22_065_P2 (Proposed Plans – First & Loft Floor Plans); drawing number 22_065_P3 (Proposed Roof Plan); drawing number 22_065_P4 (Proposed Elevations); drawing number 22_065_P5 (Proposed Sections). 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.