Appeal 3311348

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single and 2 storey side to rear extension; alterations and extension to the roof to provide storage space; rooflights to the front, side and rear roof slopes; a front porch; relocation of the main entrance; a vehicle access; extensions and alterations to hardstanding; installation of a 2m high pedestrian gate and boundary fence to the side; and an outbuilding in the rear for use as storage/gym (demolition of detached garage and side entrance canopy) - in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2170/22, dated 9 June 2022, and subject to the following

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 20052-HH3-01.01 and 20052-HH3-01.02.

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

The flat roofed areas hereby permitted shall not be used as balconies, roof gardens or similar amenity areas.

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

[address] is a main urban route lined in this area mainly by a mixture of houses and blocks of flats. No 56 is a semi-detached house set well back on a wide plot with a strip of trees and open space to the side. The proposal includes a number of elements, but the Council’s objection focuses on the 2 storey side/rear extension. I understand that a similar, but significantly smaller extension to the house has recently been granted planning permission by the Council.

The Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (RDG) advises that side extensions to semi-detached houses should be set back by at least a metre from the front wall at first floor level to avoid creating a terracing effect. It does allow, however, that the lack of a set back can be justified in certain circumstances, including where the flank wall would be at least a metre from the side boundary or where there is open space to the side.

In this case the proposed extension’s first floor front wall would only be set back marginally, but the 2 criteria above would both be more than met since there is a substantial width of garden and open space to the side. The extension’s roof would also be set down and the form of the building articulated to avoid it looking overly bulky or monolithic. Although the new 2 storey section would stretch well to the rear of the existing house, the use of a hipped roof at the back would help to keep it from being overly dominant in the street scene. In this comparatively spacious situation and open setting the extension would not overdevelop the plot or appear out of scale.

I conclude that the proposal would be well designed to avoid harm to the character and appearance of the local area. It therefore accords with the shared aims of London Plan 2021 policy D3, [name] policy CS1(B), Harrow Council Development Management Policies policy DM1, the RDG and the National Planning Policy Framework, to ensure that development responds to the existing character of a place and achieves a high standard of design including in relation to the massing, bulk, scale and height of proposed buildings.

I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. The use of matching materials is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the local area. A condition is also needed restricting use of the approved flat roofs to protect neighbours from overlooking and loss of privacy.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.