Outbuilding, canopy, boiler house and raised platforms Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 July 2026 by Andrew Fulford BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009475 20 Clifton Road, Kenton, Harrow HA3 9NS • 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 Taral Parekh against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref is PL/3225/25. • The development is an outbuilding, canopy, boiler house and raised platforms Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have deleted the word “retention” from the banner heading as that in itself is not a form of development. Neither party would be prejudiced by the change. However, the application form confirms that the development has been completed and I was able to see this during my site visit. I have determined the appeal on that basis. 3. Since the Council determined the appeal proposal the Harrow Local Plan 2021-41 (HLP) has been formally adopted by the Council. Consequently, Policies CS1.U and CS1(B) of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM1 and DM9 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), that were referred to in the Decision Notice have been deleted. The Council now relies upon Policies GR1 and CN3 of the HLP alongside Polices D3 and SI12 of the London Plan (2021). To ensure that the appellant is not disadvantaged they have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the relevance of the adoption of the HLP to the appeal proposals. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • The effect of the raised patio, canopy and boiler house on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 18 and 22 Clifton Road with regards to outlook; and • The effect of the development on flood risk. Reasons Living Conditions 5. Clifton Road is a residential street consisting primarily of traditional terraced properties. The appeal property is a mid-terraced dwelling which has been Appeal Decision 6009475 2 extended through the installation of a rear dormer window and erection of a single storey rear extension which extends across the full width of the property. The adjoining properties, Nos 18 and 22 also have single storey rear extensions. Both neighbouring properties have ground floor windows that serve habitable rooms in close proximity to the boundary with the appeal property. 6. A raised patio area has been added to rear of the extension which sits above natural ground level. Three steps have been attached to the rear of patio which emphasises the levels difference between the grassed area of garden and patio. The patio is enclosed on both sides by a combination of brick walls with an obscurely glazed Perspex screen above. A similar Perspex screen also acts as a roof above the patio with wooden columns providing structural support. The boiler room is also located on the patio area which is a brick-built structure positioned directly adjacent to the boundary with No 22. 7. Whilst only single storey, the combination of the extension and enclosed patio area extend significantly beyond the rear of both neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the canopy structure is notably taller than the boundary fencing that extends along both side boundaries. The patio has a shallow mono pitch roof but this does little to reduce its dominance given the extent to which the patio is raised above the natural ground level. Given both the depth and height of the enclosed patio the proposal appears dominant and overbearing when viewed from the rear ground floor windows of both neighbouring properties which are in close proximity. The harm is exacerbated for the occupiers of No 22 when taking into account the proximity of the boiler room directly adjacent the boundary which adds to the solid form of the development. The positioning of a large extension on the rear of No 24 has resulted in the occupiers of No 22 being enclosed on both sides by substantial built form, thereby further reducing outlook and increasing the level of overbearance. 8. It is pertinent that the Residential Design Guide SPD (2010) highlights that careful consideration should be given to the loss of outlook from habitable windows within neighbouring properties. I am conscious that given the proximity of neighbouring habitable windows and the scale of the extension the appeal scheme is not in accordance with this guidance. 9. I conclude that the proposal has an adverse impact on the living conditions of Nos 18 and 22 by virtue of a loss of outlook. This is contrary to Policy GR1 of the HLP and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Amongst other matters these policies require the provision of appropriate outlook and amenity and seek to ensure that amenity for existing, future, and neighbouring occupiers will be safeguarded. Flood Risk 10. The Council has indicated that the appeal site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3, within an area of surface water flood risk of the highest category and is also located within a critical drainage area. This has not been disputed by the appellant. 11. The outbuilding is located at the rear of the garden in close proximity to a watercourse. The outbuilding is constructed on a raised platform and surrounded by a substantial area of hardstanding. 12. Contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework the proposal has not been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment. Without any such assessment it is not Appeal Decision 6009475 3 possible to determine whether the proposal has impeded natural water flow, reduced available flood storage capacity or redirected surface water towards neighbouring properties. 13. The appellant suggests that this matter could be addressed via condition. However, a Flood Risk Assessment is needed to support an application to determine whether the proposal has exacerbated flood risk in the local area. Without an understanding of whether appropriate mitigation could be implemented any condition would be unenforceable and imprecise. 14. I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal has not increased levels of flood risk. This is contrary to Policy CN3 of the HLP and Policy SI12 of the London Plan (2021). Amongst other matters these policies require the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment that minimises the risk of flooding on site and does not increase the risk of flooding and achieves appropriate finished floor levels for development in Flood Zone 3. Conclusion 15. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Fulford INSPECTOR