Single and two storey side extension; alterations to roof to form end gable and rear dormer; installation of two rooflights in front roofslope

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 March 2026 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004211 25 Torver Road, Harrow HA1 1TH • 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 Mrs Bothina Mayer against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref is PL/2380/25. • The development proposed is single and two storey side extension; alterations to roof to form end gable and rear dormer; installation of two rooflights in front roofslope. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The original description of development is provided in a more succinct form in the decision notice. Therefore, the above description reflects this amended description. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling in a residential road of similar properties. The surrounding area is residential in character. 5. The Council indicates that the hip to gable conversion of the existing roof and the addition of a rear dormer and front rooflights are acceptable elements of the overall proposal. I agree given that similar alterations and additions have been made to a number of properties in the surrounding area and are, therefore, characteristic features. Consequently, the principal consideration in the context of the main issue is the effect of the proposed side extension in combination with the other proposed changes. 6. Policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) (CS) and Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) (DMP) require high Appeal Decision 6004211 2 standards of design and seek to protect local character. These requirements are also reflected in Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). 7. The Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) says that where the property has already been extended by the conversion of a hipped to a gabled roof, a further side extension (first floor or two storey) is inappropriate1. Moreover, for side extensions a hipped rather than a gabled roof is preferable to reduce roof bulk2. 8. The side extension would be of proportionate width to the dwelling’s original frontage and would include matching windows. As such, based on these elements the extension would integrate effectively with the host dwelling. However, the extended roof would comprise stepped gables, which would add considerable bulk to the roof profile, contrary to the guidance in the SPD. 9. Furthermore, there are a number of examples of hip to gable conversions on nearby dwellings as the appellant contends, but there are no visible examples of the type of stepped gable arrangement resulting from the proposed changes to the original roof and addition of a side extension. Consequently, due to its prominence in the street scene, the extensions would result in visual harm to the host dwelling due to the bulky roof profile; and would be incongruous and uncharacteristic in the wider setting. 10. I acknowledge that the proposed extensions are intended to create additional living space in a sustainable location. However, this is not sufficient reason to overcome the harm and conflict with development plan policies that I have found would result from the proposal. 11. Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to Policy CS1 of the CS, Policy DM1 of the DMP and to Policy D3 of the London Plan, as described. Other Matters 12. I have had regard to the representation made by an interested party. This does not, however, raise any additional matters in relation to the main issue that would lead me to reach a different overall conclusion. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR 1 Paragraph 6.57. 2 Paragraph 6.42.