Appeal 3332143

The appeal is dismissed.

The amendments of the National Planning Policy Framework were published in December 2023. These amendments do not alter the basis upon which this appeal has been assessed.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a residential area which includes dwellings of a similar design. As identified by the appellant and observed during the site visit, some of the dwellings within the surrounding area have been altered, including the erection of first floor side extensions of the type proposed as part of this appeal scheme. However, the design of these dwellings generally varies from the property and the planning circumstances of these other dwellings have not been provided. For these reasons, the other altered dwellings are only given limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

As with other neighbouring dwellings, the front elevation of the property includes a prominent and distinctive catslide roof which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the streetscene. The 2-storey front projection has a hipped roof form. The proposed front extension would be predominantly at first floor level and would result in the loss of the majority of the catslide roof. This proposed extension would have a crown roof. At ground there would be a hipped roof above the existing porch.

Although set down from the main ridge of the property, the design of the proposed front extension would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host property, this pair of semi-detached dwellings and the streetscene, principally because of the loss of the catslide roof. Further, because of the scale and siting of this element of the appeal scheme there would be an unbalancing of the appearance of this pair of semi-detached dwellings as claimed by the Council. The proposed crown roof would not be a visually significant addition to the streetscene but it would still be noticeable from the road and adds, albeit in a limited way, to the unacceptable harm which has been identified.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene and the host property and, as such, it would conflict with Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan. This policy refers to developments, including extensions, being of a high standard of design, including the roof form and scale, and also taking into account the context provided by neighbouring buildings.

Policy D3 of the London Plan is primarily directed at optimising site capacity through the design-led approach rather than the design of extensions. Policy CS.1 of the [name] is a general policy concerning sustainable development rather than being specifically about the nature of the proposed development. Although these policies are not of direct relevance, for the reasons which have been given it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.