Appeal 3317088

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

An application for an award of costs has been made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. This is subject of a separate

The description of development has been changed by the Council and there is no evidence of an agreement therefore between the main parties. I have thus used the description as it appears on the application form which, in any event, adequately describes the development to which the appeal relates.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO), under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4(7) require an assessment as to the impact of a given scheme on the amenity of any adjoining premises (living conditions), taking into account any representations received. This has formed the main issue, with specific regard to the occupants of No [address] and their outlook.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The adjoining dwelling to the north, No 14, has no rear extension and a kitchen located to the rear with a window close to the boundary with No 16. There are steps down to a patio directly to the rear of No 14 and further steps down to a lower-level garden area. The rear gardens of both No 14 and No 16 are neither particularly long nor wide and face west-south-west. The gradient of the rear garden is mirrored next door at No 16 and slopes downwards. At the time of my visit the boundary fence between No 16 and No 14 cast shadow onto some of the rear amenity space at No 14.

The appellant has submitted a proposal that seeks to be sympathetic to the outlook of No 14 by lowering the scheme below current floor level. The proposed maximum height would compare favourably with GDPO allowances. However, the height of the proposal would be above the window head height at No 14. This height would be consistent for 6m along the shared boundary. Given the declining gradient of the rear gardens, the close proximity and height of the development, the proposal would dominate outlook from the kitchen window of No 14, making it oppressive and enclosing. Furthermore, the proposal would place the window at No 14 in shadow for some periods of the day. [name] cannot be certain that this would be prolonged and complete enough to be harmful to daylight levels, it would exacerbate the sense of enclosure.

The fact the kitchen window is not ‘protected’ for the purposes of the Harrow Supplementary Planning Document Residential [name] (2010) (the SPD) does not make the appeal scheme acceptable. Putting aside that this is guidance and not policy and relevant policies would in any event not be determinative for this prior approval case, I note that the window and room would not be so due to the kitchen concerned being less than [address] metres. That said, it is the only window (the rear door aside) into the kitchen of No 14 and indeed into the rear ground floor of the dwelling. In addition, its floor space is only marginally below [address] metres; 11.[address] metres according to the appellant’s plans.

The appellant states that the fence is tall and the extension flank wall would be entirely concealed behind it. Whilst the appellant suggests the fence was granted permission under P/2698/21, it appears to be subject of investigations by the Council’s planning enforcement team. In any event, the plan reference 16TH.ELEV.03 shows the maximum height at 3.1m, and importantly above the window head height at No 14, even with the drop in ground level. The fence is not up to this height, by some measure, and would not conceal the proposal. I remain to be convinced therefore that the fence would conceal the proposed development sufficiently to make it acceptable.

The proposal would harmfully affect outlook from within the kitchen at No 14. Accordingly, and as far as it is a material consideration to the main issue, it would fail to comply with the aims of Policy DM1 of the Local Plan, insofar as it seeks to safeguard the adequacy of outlook. Furthermore, there would also be conflict with the SPD insofar as it seeks to safeguard amenity.

In the case of APP/M5450/D/18/3213298 there was an existing rear extension of some 3.6m. The Inspector found no loss of outlook due to the height and length of the existing extension. [name]/M5450/D/19/3238969, the adjoining property was orientated to the south. [name]/MS450/D/20/3255560, the Inspector reasoned that adequate sunlight would reach the garden of No 14. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on outlook. In the case of cases PP/M4605/D/13/2206537 and APP/M5450/D/16/3151383, the proposed extension would not be substantially taller than the existing boundary fencing. [name]/M5450/D/14/2229319, the Inspector concluded that a similar proposal would not be of a dominating nature. The orientation of that scheme impacted that decision. The orientation of the subject appeal is different.

I have assessed the scheme as presented against the specific criteria of the aforementioned legislative provisions. This assessment has been on its own merits and own specific locational circumstances with regard to whether it would comply or not. Whilst planning judgement has been used, the measurement is more binary than in the case of a scheme seeking express planning permission where other examples might be afforded more than limited weight.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed since it would fail against an assessment as to its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises. S Wilson APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.