Appeal 3331760

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area characterised by the presence of similar two storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings set back from the road behind short parking areas.

The appeal property is situated in a prominent location, at the junction of [address] with [address]. It has a flat-roofed single storey extension to the side, albeit its front elevation has a lean-to roof which connects to the dwelling’s front porch.

The side extension projects to the edge of pavement such that it sits well forward of the build-line of dwellings along [address] to the rear and during my site visit, I noted that the rear of the appeal property appears prominently as one travels along [address] towards [address].

The similar appearance of dwellings in the area derives in part from the common presence of tiled roofs, bay windows and front gables, single-storey side extensions, the prevalence of white rendering and a sense of rhythm afforded by the setting back of dwellings and the regular presence of gaps above ground floor level between pairs and rows of dwellings.

This results in a notable sense of uniformity which is further enhanced by a significant degree of symmetry apparent between pairs of dwellings and in the case of the appeal property, between it and its neighbouring dwelling on the opposite side of [address], Number [address]. Like the appeal property, No 73 has a single storey, flat-roofed side extension which projects to the edge of the pavement along [address].

[name] observed during my site visit that many dwellings have been extended and/or altered, such changes tend to appear in keeping with host dwellings and their surroundings and consequently, tend to appear to the benefit of the area’s uniform qualities. I also noted during my site visit that the gaps between buildings referred to above combine with the presence of gardens, parking areas and street trees to provide for a sense of greenery and spaciousness.

The proposal would result in a tall, two-storey extension rising immediately above the pavement along [address]. The absence of any set-back from the pavement would, I find, result in the extension failing to appear as a subservient addition. Rather, it would appear as an unduly large, bulky and imposing feature. 10.Further to the above, the proposal would serve to erode an important gap above ground floor level at the entrance to [address] from [address]. As well as detract from the area’s spacious qualities, the proposal would harm the significant sense of symmetry that currently exists between the appeal property and No 73 and this in turn, would be detrimental to the uniform attributes of the area. 11.Further, the harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the prominent location of the appeal property, whereby the detrimental impacts of the proposal would be widely visible from the surrounding area. 12.In addition, the proposed dormer extension would be large and would occupy a vast part of the appeal property’s rear roof-slope. Furthermore, it would only be set in slightly from the shared party boundary. Together, these factors would result in the creation of a large and bulky dormer extension that would appear as an unduly dominant feature on the rear roof-slope. 13.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the combined impacts of the proposal as a whole would result in it drawing the eye as an intrusive and incongruous development, especially when seen from [address]. 14.Given all of this, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan Policy D3 and D11; to DMP1 Policy DM1; to Core Policy2 CS1; and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. 1 Reference: Harrow Development Management Policies (2013). 2 Reference: [name] (2012). 2