Single-story rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 April 2026 By Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004645 61 West End Avenue, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 1BN • 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 Shekhar Jadhav against the decision of the London Borough of Harrow Council. • The application Ref is PL/2902/25. • The development proposed is a single-story rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. The application form described the proposed development as “Proposed single story rear extension with associated internal alterations”. The associated internal alterations do not require planning permission and therefore can reasonably be left out of the description of the proposed development. The council’s decision notice added “(Demolition of ground floor rear bay windows)”. In the circumstances of this case, that demolition is significant, but I consider that the appeal can continue using the appellant’s description as set out in the banner heading above. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the character and appearance of the host building, the locality, and the visual amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. Reasons 4. Number 61 West End Avenue is a two-storey detached house with large front garden, set back from the street in a residential area. The prevailing building form for the majority of local properties is 2-storey with pitched gable roofs as common features. The appeal dwelling is of a smaller scale that most houses in the vicinity. It is a locally listed building, being of architectural and historic interest. 5. The local list entry is for identification purposes, but gives an indication of significance. It reads: “White rendered detached house, designed by J E Henderson in 1925. Pitched tiled roof slanting down at one section to form porch roof. Two-part timbered projecting gables with canted bracketed bay to first floor. Single and two storey canted bays to rear.” The building is of Arts and Crafts ‘stockbroker vernacular design’. The Glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework defines a heritage asset as “A building, monument, site, place, area or Appeal Decision 6004645 2 landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. It includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)”. It is therefore an undesignated heritage asset. 6. At present, and as far as I could see as built, the rear elevation has a single-storey canted bay and a 2-storey canted bay, as set out in the description in the paragraph above. These canted bays are very much an integral part of the design, repeated on the northern, side, elevation. 7. The appeal proposal would retain the first-floor canted bay, and would replicate the ground floor bay in the rear elevation of the proposed rear extension. However, that element of the rear extension would be a minor reflection of the existing carefully considered original design. And because it would be some 8.275m away from the existing rear elevation, it would lose any real relationship with the feature on the present house. Further, it would be set at one end of the proposed extension (albeit in line with the retained first-floor canted bay) which would otherwise be characterised by a wide crown roof on top of very low hips on 3 sides, with a single entrance door at the northern end under a small gabled roof running down that side. In addition, the rear elevation would feature a large central set of patio doors. 8. The result of the proposal would be a large rear extension, spanning the full width of the house, having roof forms and other elements that bear no relationship to the original design of the building, whilst including, in the context of the reminder of the design of the extension, an inappropriate single-storey canted bay. This amounts to poor design that is damaging to the original concept of the design of the house and the reasons for it being identified as locally listed for its architectural and historic interest. The proposed design and bulk would be overwhelming in relation to the more modest scale of the host property. As such it would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the house, and the locality. The extension would be apparent from the adjacent houses, with a degree of negative impact, but not sufficient to warrant refusal in itself. 9. I note that the appellant obtained pre-application advice from the council, supplied as part of the appeal documentation, prior to submitting the application. Having noted what is said in paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 of that advice, I find it difficult to see that it would be supportive of the appeal proposal. I would add that I cannot regard it as clear guidance on what amendments would be required to the scheme, the subject of the pre-application consultation, although the appellant states that the proposal has been revised in response to that advice. 10. Be that as it may, my decision rests on my appraisal of the details set out in the appeal proposal, and what I saw at my site visit and the planning policies referred to. For the reasons expressed above, the appeal will be dismissed. Terrence Kemmann-Lane INSPECTOR