Single storey side extension; conversion of garage into habitable room; alterations and extensions to roof to create a pitched roof over garage; single storey rear extensions; alterations to roof to form end gable and rear dormer; external alterations (r etrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) Bsc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009885 3 Suffolk Road, North Harrow HA2 7QH • 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 Ms Zainab Electricwala. • The application Ref. is PL/0540/26. • The development proposed is a single storey side extension; conversion of garage into habitable room; alterations and extensions to roof to create a pitched roof over garage; single storey rear extensions; alterations to roof to form end gable and rear dormer; external alterations (r etrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension; conversion of garage into habitable room; alterations and extensions to roof to create a pitched roof over garage; single storey rear extensions; alterations to roof to form end gable and rear dormer; external alterations (retrospective) at 3 Suffolk Road, North Harrow HA2 7QH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. PL/0540/26, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the condition that the development shall be carried out / completed in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. 24.081.PL.001 Rev.00; 24.081.PL.002 Rev.01; 24.081.PL.003 Rev.01; 24.081.PL.05. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider streetscene. Reasons 3. I saw on my visit that the appeal dwelling property was originally a bungalow flanked on each side by a two-storey mid C20th house and is positioned on a corner where Suffolk Road joins Lancaster Road. At the time of my visit much of the scheme had been implemented, with the garage conversion as the main unfinished element. 4. The Officer’s report appraises the extensions in turn, with some regarded as acceptable. However, it is considered that the existing rear dormer in conjunction with the ground floor rear and hip to gable extensions are excessive in bulk and scale, dominating the rear elevation and appearing unsympathetic and out of keeping with the character of the host property and the wider streetscene. 5. The extensions are in no sense subordinate and have significantly altered the streetscene appearance and scale of the building, particularly the higher and wider roof. However, with its location in a road of two-storey houses and on a restricted wedged shaped plot the original building appeared somewhat out of place, whilst Appeal Decision Ref. 6009885 2 the flat roof garage when seen together with a similar garage at the neighbouring No. 5 was a negative feature. 6. The extension over the garage has already improved that aspect and the proposed insertion of a window to replace the garage door will be a further enhancement. I also note that the attractive double frontage of the building has been retained, along with the aesthetically pleasing arched front door. 7. The Council’s concern as to the visual impact of the large rear extensions and their associated roofscape is to some extent justified because it can clearly be seen as part of the streetscene through the gap with No. 47 Lancaster Road. However, the visual impact is reduced because the roof height is no greater than the eaves height of this neighbour, whilst the weathering of the external materials will in the course of time make the extension less noticeable. 8. As a rearward view from an oblique angle, I consider it unlikely that this dormer would draw the eye and be perceived sufficiently negatively to have a noticeably adverse effect on the street scene. As regards the impact on the host dwelling, the extent of the alterations and additions has taken the building beyond the stage where it is seen as an overly extended mid C20th bungalow. It now has an individuality, which although pushing the limit for development on a small triangular site, also has the redeeming features on the front elevation to which I have referred. 9. On balance therefore, whilst the development is contrary to some parts of the Council’s Residential Design Guide SPD 2010, this is partly offset by improvements. Overall, I do not find that that its effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider streetscene to be in unacceptably harmful conflict with Policy GR1 of the Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 adopted in 2026 or with Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed subject to a condition for the development to be in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR