Proposed ground floor front and rear extension, porch, first floor side & rear extension and alteration to existing loft dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002940 121 Cambridge Road, Harrow, North Harrow HA2 7LB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Arun Selvaraj against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref is PL/2000/25. • The development proposed is “Proposed ground floor front and rear extension, porch, first floor side & rear extension and alteration to existing loft dormer.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal are unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by this. 4. The Council has referred to policies within their emerging local plan, the Emerging Harrow Local Plan (EHLP). The information before me indicates that the EHLP is at Regulation 19 stage. Given that it is not an adopted development plan, it is at an early stage which is understood not to have been examined, I have therefore given limited weight to relevant policies of the EHLP at this stage in my considerations. Main Issues 5. The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; • the living conditions of the occupants of 119 and 123 Cambridge Road, with regard to light and outlook; and • the likelihood of flooding in the area. Appeal Planning Officer 6002940 2 Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 6. The surrounding area generally consists of two-storey, semi-detached houses with white or brown render elevations, front porches, hipped roofs, and rear gardens. Semi-detached pairs are linked to neighbouring pairs via their garages and set back from the highway behind driveways and front gardens, giving the area a spacious feel. Many houses in the area, including the appeal property, are distinguished by their two-storey, front-gabled bay windows clad with red hanging tiles. 7. The host dwelling forms the left-hand half of a pair of semi-detached houses. It shares a boundary wall with 123 Cambridge Road and is linked via its garage to 119 Cambridge Road. It has a side dormer, rear dormer and single-storey rear extension from which a raised timber patio extends further into the rear garden. 8. The proposed rear dormer’s L-shaped design would appear uneven and would occupy a substantial proportion of the rear roof slope, failing to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Whilst the area has a varied side and rear roofscape proposed development, by virtue of its irregular form, excessive size and proximity to the boundary, would occupy a substantial proportion of the rear roof slope and would not harmonise with the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. 9. The proposed rear dormer would be located closer to the boundary with No 123 than the existing rear dormer and its extension to the side with a smaller, half- height rear dormer would appear bulky. The Harrow Council Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide (2010) (SPD) recommends that rear dormers be set in at least 1 metre from eaves and verges, and at least 0.5 metres from shared boundaries and roof valleys to appear visually contained and reduce their prominence. The proposed rear dormer would cover the majority of the rear roof slope, conflicting with this guidance and dominating the rear elevation. Whilst the rear dormer would use matching materials and would not be visible from the street due to the two-storey side and rear extension, its irregular shape and excessive size would appear as a discordant and disproportionate addition to the host dwelling. 10. The proposed 4 front rooflights would be at odds with the primarily undeveloped front roof slopes of the area. Whilst the rooflights would use matching materials and be smaller than the host dwelling’s existing windows, their siting on the front roof slopes of both the host dwelling and the proposed two-storey side extension would increase their prominence. They would compete visually with the two-storey front- gabled bay windows that are an important feature of the host dwelling and the surrounding area and would contribute to the overall visual conflict between the proposal and the prevailing roofscape. 11. Whilst the appellant has suggested a condition to omit rooflights from the proposal, or a pre-commencement condition to submit a revised proposal for rooflights to the Council, this would not be reasonable as it would result in changes to the proposed development. Furthermore, the omission or redesign of some or all of the proposed front rooflights would not outweigh the harm of the rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Appeal Planning Officer 6002940 3 12. For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), Core Policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) (HCS), Policy DM1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies (2013) (DMP), and the guidance contained within the SPD. Together these seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style and form, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment. For the same reason, the proposed development would conflict with the policies of the Framework relating to achieving well-designed places. Living Conditions 13. No 119 and No 123 are located to the east and west of the appeal site respectively. In contrast to the appeal site, both neighbouring properties have largely undeveloped rear gardens, and their ground floor rear elevations are set significantly farther back from the host dwelling’s. The host dwelling’s existing single-storey rear extension extends from the boundary with No 123 and does not extend the width of the rear garden. Due to the host dwelling’s linked garages with No 119, there is a gap between the host dwelling’s eastern side boundary and No 119’s ground floor habitable rear rooms. Nevertheless, the occupants of both No 119 and No 123 have a relatively restricted outlook from their ground floor habitable rear rooms due to the height and depth of the host dwelling’s existing rear extension, which also reduces the amount of light reaching those rooms. 14. The proposed single-storey rear extension would extend the full width of the rear garden and significantly further forward of the host dwelling’s ground floor rear elevation. Although the eaves height would not exceed that of the existing rear extension or the boundary fence with No 119, the proposal’s excessive width and depth would extend beyond the existing rear extension, making it a dominant feature in views from the ground floor rear windows of both No 119 and No 123. It would obstruct their already limited outlook and would further reduce the amount of light entering their ground floor habitable rear rooms, resulting in an overbearing and enclosing effect. 15. The Council has stated that the proposed single-storey rear extension would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and the appellant has stated that the height of the proposed single-storey rear extension would not exceed the guidance contained within the SPD. However, this does not outweigh the cumulative harm of the proposal’s excessive width and depth to the living conditions of the occupants of No 119 and No 123. 16. I have been referred to a fallback position that exists through a prior approval for the erection of a single-storey rear extension. The prior approval plans indicate a single-storey rear extension that would be narrower than the appeal scheme, in proximity only to the boundary with No 123. As it would be sited away from the boundary with No 119, it would appear less visually intrusive and would not restrict as much light to their ground floor rear rooms. The fallback position would therefore be less harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of No 119. For this reason, I have afforded it only limited weight in my overall assessment. 17. For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 119 and No 123, with regard to light and outlook. Appeal Planning Officer 6002940 4 Consequently, it would conflict with Policy D3 of the LP, and Policy DM1 of the DMP. Together these seek to ensure that development is not visually intrusive, creating an overbearing and enclosing effect and resulting in unacceptable harm to current and future occupants of neighbouring properties due to a loss of light and outlook. Flooding 18. Whilst the appeal site is less than 1 hectare within Flood Zone 1, and does not lie within a critical drainage area, it is at risk of surface water flooding. The proposed development would increase the footprint of the host dwelling, increasing impermeable surfacing on the appeal site. As a result, there is likely to be an increase in surface water run-off. No information has been submitted detailing how increased run-off would be managed or mitigated. 19. Without a site-specific flood risk assessment, it is unknown whether the site is capable of incorporating sufficient drainage to reduce the risk of surface water flooding in and around the appeal site. The appellant has suggested a condition could secure these details; however this would not be reasonable as this could result in changes to the proposed development. 20. For these reasons, I am not convinced that the proposed development would not increase the likelihood of flooding in the area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies SI12 and SI13 of the LP, Core Policy CS1 of the HCS, and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the DMP. Together these seek to ensure that development makes adequate provision for the control and reduction of surface water run-off to minimises the risk of flooding. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure that development does not present a risk from flooding. Conclusion and Recommendation 21. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 22. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR