Appeal 3295317

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension; external alterations at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/4815/21, dated 7 December 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2021176.PA.101/revP01, Existing & [name]/rev P01 and Existing & [name]/rev P01.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

While different to that on the application form, I have taken the description of development stated upon both the appeal form and the decision notice as it is a more accurate reflection of the development proposals.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a 2-storey detached house located at the end of a cul-de-sac within a suburban residential street comprising predominantly detached houses. Whilst there a relatively regular rhythm to the properties in the street within which the appeal site is located, there is some variety in the scale, orientation and appearance of houses within the area. Several, including numbers 64 and [address] appear to have been subject of previous extension 2 storey side extensions. These and other extensions within the wider area have assimilated into the street scene without harm.

The extension would not be subordinate to the existing dwelling in terms of ridge height or set back from the front building line of the original dwelling. However, it would have matching materials, a width equal to the existing single storey side extension, and it would be set behind the ground floor lean to roof to the front of the house. As such it would not be incongruous or obtrusive in relation to either the host dwelling or the wider street scene.

The separation distances between houses within the street are generally relatively small in relation to the sizes of the buildings. However, many of the gaps afford views of trees and gardens to the rear of the properties, adding to the quality and distinctiveness of the local environment. Whilst the extension would be closer to the side boundary of the site than the SPD requires, given the orientation and location of the development in relation to number [address], there would be no terracing effect, and a distinctive ‘green gap’ between the properties would be retained.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with the requirements of Policy D3 of the London Plan, Core Policy CS1 of the Harrow Council Core Strategy or Policy DM1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies Local Plan, which seek to ensure that development proposals reinforce the positive attributes of local distinctiveness. Whilst there would be technical breaches of the SPD, it would accord with the aim of the SPD that extensions should harmonise with the scale and architectural style of the original building and the character of the area. It would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework where it seeks good design sympathetic to the local area.

For the reasons given above and having regard to the development plan as a whole and other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.