Raised patio at the back of the house more than 30 cm high
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 June 2023
by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date:22 June 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/23/3321687
92 College Hill Road, Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 7DA
• 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 Cafer Celebi Sadeeq Mohammed against the decision of the
Council of the London Borough of Harrow.
• The application Ref: P/4524/22, dated 13 December 2022, was refused by notice dated
12 April 2023.
• The development proposed is raised patio at the back of the house more than 30 cm
high.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for raised patio at
rear with external steps and balustrade at 92 College Hill Road, Harrow Weald,
Harrow HA3 7DA in accordance with the terms of the application
Ref: P/4524/22, dated 13 December 2022 and the plans submitted with it,
subject to the following condition:
1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: CELEBI-01-PL10, CELEBI-01-PL01A, CELEBI-
01-PL02A, CELEBI-01-PL03A, CELEBI-01-PL04A, CELEBI-01-PL05A, CELEBI-
01-PL06A, CELEBI-01-PL07A, CELEBI-01-PL08A, CELEBI-01-PL09A, CELEBI-
01-PL10A, CELEBI-01-PL12A.
Main Issues
2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on the
character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of the
occupiers of Nos.90 and 94 College Hill Road in respect of privacy and outlook.
Preliminary Matter
3. The development was completed prior to the application to the Council. I have
determined this appeal based upon the Council’s description of development as
“raised patio at rear with external steps and balustrade” as I consider that it is
a more accurate specification for the development.
Reasons
Character and appearance
4. No.92 College Hill Road is a two storey semi-detached dwelling house with a
single storey rear extension and is located in a residential area. The dwellings
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/23/3321687
2
in College Hill Road step down the hillside, resulting in the dwelling at No.90
being founded at a lower level than No.92. Dwellings in this part of College Hill
Road are of a similar age and design.
5. However, to the north of the appeal site, beyond the rear garden of No.94,
dwellings have various forms of development to the rear. To the south of the
appeal site there is a small development of dwellings of a different age, style
and orientation. The boundary treatment varies, including different types of
timber fencing and hedging. Overall there is no consistency in the appearance
of the rear gardens of the immediately surrounding properties.
6. The raised patio which has been created at the appeal site extends for around
5.46 m from the front elevation of the rear extension. It has a short flight of
steps which provide access to the rear garden. The patio and balustrade is not
seen from College Hill Road. It is of a contemporary design, it complements
the rear extension and does not appear intrusive or overbearing.
7. I find that the development has no significant harmful effect on the character
or appearance of the area. It therefore does not conflict with policy D3.D(11)
of the London Plan, Harrow Core Strategy policy CS1(B) and Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan policy DM1 which, amongst other
things, seek to ensure a high standard of design and layout and response to
the local context.
Effect on living conditions
8. No.90 has a rear conservatory and a small patio area with steps to the rear
garden. The boundary fence with the appeal site and a conifer tree restrict
overlooking of the patio area at No.90 from the patio area at the appeal site.
No.94 has a rear patio which has a similar level to that at the appeal site. Rear
windows in the dwellings already allow views over neighbouring gardens.
9. The boundary fencing does not appear excessive and limits views into the
gardens of the neighbouring gardens at each side of the appeal site without
any significant harm for the outlook of neighbours.
10. I find that the appeal development has no significant increased harmful effect
the on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos.90 and 94 College Hill Road
respect of privacy and outlook. The development therefore does not conflict
with policy D3.D(7) of the London Plan and policy DM1 of the Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan, both of which seek to protect
residential amenity.
Other Matters
11. Whether the fence at No.90 has been used as a barrier for the raised patio and
any concreting over of manhole covers would be matters for resolution by the
parties concerned and not for my consideration as part of this appeal.
Conditions
12. A condition is imposed to specify the approved plans.
Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/23/3321687
3
Conclusion
13. I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the Council’s
Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide and the National
Planning Policy Framework. However, for the reasons given above the appeal
is allowed.
Martin H Seddon
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.