Appeal 3327238

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to roof; front and rear dormers; rooflights in rear and both side roof slopes; alterations to front porch; front entrance canopy; external alterations (demolition of front porch) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/1610/23, dated 2 June 2023, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

Since they more accurately describe the appellant’s proposals, I have used the description of the proposed development seen in the Council’s decision notices rather than those in the original application forms. Appeal Decisions APP/M5450/D/23/3323579 & APP/M5450/D/23/3327238

As the descriptions of the proposed developments imply, both schemes are comprised of several elements. All the elements are separately considered in the officer reports on each application both in terms of design and possible effects on neighbouring amenity.

The Council raises no objection to most of the elements, and I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessments in this regard. The Council’s concerns relate solely to the front dormer proposed in each case, and this aspect forms the basis of the only reason for refusal used in both decision letters.

Having regard to the above, the main issue in both appeals is the effect of the proposed front dormer on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

The appeal property is a substantial detached dwelling. [name] visited it was vacant and secured by timber security screens on the site frontage. It stands in a lengthy street displaying distinct suburban characteristics comprised of a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings.

Apart from its reliance on development plan policies directed to design, the Council also refer me to the guidance on roof alterations and dormers set out in its SPD1. The guidance provides that front or side dormers ‘can be objectionable’. This does not, to my mind, mean that all front dormers are necessarily objectionable as a matter of principle, since as the guidance also points out, ‘consideration will be given to the type of roof, the scale of proposals, and the character/appearance of the house and those adjacent. Thus, a subjective assessment is called for having regard to the listed criteria.

As the Council points out, none of the dwellings in the street display front dormers. However, the appellant observes, and the Council concurs, that many of the detached dwellings in the street show different characteristics in terms of their design and appearance, and several have been modified since being built. Roof designs are varied, and many features project above eaves level, punctuating roof lines when viewed from the street.

The dormers proposed were designed with a view to marrying with the form of the prominent twin gables at the front of the property. However, the dormer subject of appeal A is far larger than that subject of appeal [name] is its size and bulkiness that in my opinion it would dominate the roof, resulting in the host property becoming perceived as top-heavy, materially harming its character and appearance, and that of its surroundings.

The dormer subject of appeal B is more modest in scale and would be seen as subservient and proportionate within the overall mass of the roof. It would also be sited at a relatively low level so that in oblique views along the street, most of the structure would be screened by the projecting front gables on 1 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on [name] (2010) paragraphs 6.66 % 6.67 in particular. 2 Appeal Decisions APP/M5450/D/23/3323579 & APP/M5450/D/23/3327238 either side. It would have far less of an impact than the dormer subject of appeal A and would sit acceptably in its visual context.

I therefore conclude that the proposal subject of appeal A would harm the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of policies 7.4B & 7.6B of The London Plan, policy CS1 B of the [name] and policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Local Plan Policies, which, in combination, require new development to be of a high standard of design, respectful of local architecture and character, and for house extensions to respect their host buildings.

On the other hand, I find that the scheme subject of Appeal B complies with the thrust of these development plan policies, and this appeal succeeds for this

In respect of Appeal B, the Council’s suggested conditions regarding materials and that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans shall be imposed in the interests of visual amenity and certainty respectively.

I have taken account of all other matters raised in the representations, including the references to the National Planning Policy Framework, and the appellant’s references to what are regarded as broadly similar development in this and adjacent streets. I give these examples little weight since I am not aware of all the circumstances surrounding those cases. I have therefore determined the appeals on their individual merits having regard to the development plan and other material considerations.

No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions.

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

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.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: the location plan and [name] 8164527- 04-1100 [name]; 8164527-04-1200 [name]; 8164527-04-3100 [name]; 8164527-04-3200 [name] & B-8164527-04-3000 [name]. 3