Development proposed is: Part demolition existing garage and proposal of new rear and side single storey extension to facilitate new kitchen/dining space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 June 2026 by Andrew Dale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:07 July 2026 Appeal Ref. 6009963 1 Felden Close, Hatch End, Pinner HA5 4PU • 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 Patrick Burke against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application ref. is PL/0288/26. • The development proposed is: Part demolition existing garage and proposal of new rear and side single storey extension to facilitate new kitchen/dining space. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary points 2. The description of the proposal in the heading above is taken from the application form. The description found on the Council’s decision notice is Single storey side to rear extension (demolition of garage). The appellant says that this change was not agreed to and that full demolition of the garage was not intended as the front and side elevations would be retained. There is further confusion. The Council’s Delegated Report refers to Part demolition of garage in the section headed Proposal Details, whilst the plans showing the existing elevations are annotated with the text Existing garage to be removed. Having regard to all the material and plans before me and my site visit, I consider it more likely than not that parts of the existing garage would be retained and repaired as required. I proceed on that basis with the application description in mind, but my decision does not turn on this point. 3. I acknowledge the appellant’s attempt to adopt a collaborative approach with the Council during the application process and that he was left frustrated without any invitation to submit revised plans before the Council’s decision was issued. However, the householder appeal procedure is based on the assumption that a decision can reasonably be made on the basis of the plans which were before the Council when it made its decision, in the knowledge that the process does not allow any opportunity for the Council to comment on the grounds of appeal or for third parties to make any comments. My decision must therefore be based on those plans and not on the revised plans that have been submitted with the appeal. Appeal Decision 6009963 2 4. The site is in the Pinnerwood Park Estate Conservation Area (CA), a designated heritage asset. I have therefore had regard to section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which places a duty, in the exercise of planning functions, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Main issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host building and the visual amenities of the locality, bearing in mind the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Reasons 6. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 7. The development plan includes the London Plan 2021 (LP) and the Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (HLP). The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the Harrow Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the Pinnerwood Park Estate Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (AMS) are material considerations which I have had regard to. 8. Set within a cul-de-sac, no. 1 is a semi-detached, 2-storey house with a flat-roofed detached side garage set well back and a mono-pitched rear ground floor extension. There are trees at the rear protected by Tree Preservation Orders. As well as the obvious views of the property from Felden Close, public views of the rear can be had from Hallam Gardens over the rear garden of 29 Hallam Gardens. 9. The significance of the CA is largely derived from the early 20th century garden suburb model it follows, with low density and neat cottage-style housing, carefully planned layouts where house designs are often mirrored on either side of a road and garages tend to be pushed back towards the rear and to the side of the dwellings allowing for views through into the garden, an abundance of greenery including tree-lined streets, grass verges and mature background trees in the rear gardens and consistent architectural styling. Felden Close and no. 1 in particular are relatively unaltered and consistent with these general characteristics. The appeal property therefore makes a positive contribution to the special interest and significance of the CA. 10. The proposed extension would be single-storey only and exhibit no forward encroachment. Even so, it would be sizeable in terms of its scale, depth, width and overall bulk, would wrap around the southern side and rear of the house and would even drop over the corner of the existing rear ground floor extension. It would engulf the rear of the dwelling appearing insufficiently subservient and at odds with its modest proportions and detracting from the integrity and neatness of the original building’s built form, floor plan and architecture. The proposed increase in built form would be apparent in public views. 11. Fully linked to the existing garage thereby completely infilling the passageway between the house and garage, the new addition would be covered by a flat roof that would also involve raising the garage roof by about 327mm. Whilst the Council Appeal Decision 6009963 3 suggests that a link of some form between the house and garage may be possible, the scheme as presented, even with a garage frontage retained, would erode the typical house-garage separation, reduce openness, marginally restrict the public views currently available over the garage and the lower side gate of the attractive greenery in the rear garden and mar the obvious near symmetrical relationship with the layout of the opposing property at 15 Felden Close. 12. The appellant is correct to point out that the scheme would not result in the loss of the original elongated staircase window in the flank wall which is a traditional feature of a number of houses in the locality. Still, that it would altered and resized as a more conventional 6-light window would be another unfortunate consequence of the appeal scheme, as, noting the AMS, would the failure to include a new front garage door more in sympathy with the proportions and materials of the garage door designs that were originally adopted for the estate. 13. In such a location within the CA and a carefully planned and distinctive residential estate, there is an expectation that all new development should achieve a high quality of design and contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area. This would not occur in this case as the extension would fail to integrate well with and be harmful to the original form and appearance of the host dwelling. Having a moderate degree of prominence and a disruptive impact on the host building and the visual amenities of the surroundings, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the CA. 14. The appellant refers to a variety of extensions and alterations, including linked garages, within the estate that have been undertaken over time, some with planning approvals and points to properties on Albury Drive, Hallam Gardens, Felden Close, Broadmead Close and Grimsdyke Road. With the exception of 38 Albury Drive, where an extension scheme was allowed on appeal in 2017 under ref. APP/M5450/D/17/3176340, I do not have any planning history before me and I do not know whether the alterations, extensions and linked garages referred to were carried out before the designation of the CA in 1989. I viewed the tall glazed connection between the former garage and house at 38 Albury Drive permitted on appeal. This allows them to read as 2 separate buildings as originally planned. That scheme is markedly different to the appeal scheme before me. 15. I find on the main issue that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the visual amenities of the locality and would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. There would be conflict with LP Policies D3 and HC1 and HLP Policies GR1 and HE1 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals would enhance character, achieve a high standard of design, respond to local context and preserve or enhance a heritage asset’s significance. It would also eschew the guidance within the SPD and the AMS. 16. In terms of the Framework, the harm to the CA would be towards the lower end of the less than substantial spectrum. In considering the impact of the proposed development upon the significance of the designated heritage asset, great weight has to be given to the asset’s conservation, even where there would be less than substantial harm to its significance. Where a development proposal would lead to Appeal Decision 6009963 4 less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the harm is to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 17. The investment allied to the current proposals would not be the only way to assist in the long-term conservation of the property. The continued viable use of 1 Felden Close as a residential family dwelling is not dependent on the proposal as the ongoing residential use would not cease in its absence. The enhancement of the ground floor living accommodation (a dining kitchen to modern standards and other internal changes) would amount to an undoubted private benefit for the appellant. There would be a boost to the economy given the use of labour and resources for construction but this would be limited. 18. In the absence of any significant public benefits which would outweigh the harm, the balance of judgement in this case remains firmly in favour of the conservation of the historic environment. The scheme would therefore conflict with the Framework. 19. There were no objections in terms of impacts upon neighbouring residential amenities, protected trees, flood risks or highway safety but these considerations are neutral in the overall planning balance and conclusion. 20. HLP Policy HE2 covers enabling development. This is commonly held to be development that would not be in compliance with local and/or national planning policies, and would not normally be given planning permission, except for the fact that it would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset. The inclusion of HLP Policy HE2 in the Council’s decision notice therefore seems to me to be misplaced. This does not alter my conclusion. Conclusion 21. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should not succeed. Andrew Dale INSPECTOR