Appeal 3339607

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to the approved rear dormer at [site address] , Harrow [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/0060/23, dated 29 September 2023, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule A. Appeal B Ref: APP/M5450/W/23/3330363

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a detached house and parking with access to [address] at [site address] , Stanmore [postcode] without compliance with conditions 1, 4, 5 and 6 previously imposed on the planning permission [name]/1332/01/CON, dated 16 April 2002 and subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule B.

The description of proposed development for Appeal A, as set out on the application form and quoted above, requires some clarification. [name] saw at my site visit, a large box dormer has been built on the rear roof of the house – evidently without the required planning permission. A smaller box dormer has been approved but has not been installed. This appeal proposal is to replace the existing unauthorised structure with 2 smaller, flat roofed dormer windows. The description of the proposal set out on the Council’s decision notice captures this more accurately and succinctly as; “Alterations to roof to form 2 rear dormers”. I have considered Appeal A on this basis.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 19 December 2023, during consideration of Appeal B. Having regard to the changes in the Framework and to the comparatively minor scale and nature of this appeal proposal, I consider that further consultation on this matter is not necessary. 2 Appeal Decisions APP/M5450/D/24/3339607 and APP/M5450/W/23/3330363

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

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the house and the local area; and (ii) living conditions at neighbouring properties.

[address] sits within a suburban residential area. It is an early 21st Century detached house with hipped roofs and a long, narrow form that reflects the shape of its plot. It faces [address], with gardens to both sides and no significant front or rear gardens. The proposed dormer windows would sit within the rear roof slope, facing towards [address] next door.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document [name] (RDG) says that dormer windows should complement the original street character. It advises that they generally should be subordinate features in the roof, should not overlap or wrap around the roof hips and should retain a section of roof around the sides of a dormer window, including the upper corners, so that they will be visually contained within the roof profile.

A proposal for a box dormer similar to the existing structure was dismissed on appeal in 20221. [name] found that its siting, scale and appearance would give the resultant dwelling an awkward, top heavy appearance that would be exacerbated by the disproportionate size of the windows. The Council subsequently approved an application for a smaller dormer that would fit more comfortably into the roof slope. That permission has not been implemented.

The current proposal for 2 dormers would also fit reasonably well within the roof. Although not strictly in accordance with the dimensions set out at paragraph 6.70 of the SPD, the structures as shown on the submitted plans would be set down from the ridge, back from the eaves and well away from the side walls. Importantly their upper corners would not overlap the hips to either side, in contrast to the existing dormer which somewhat crudely extends beyond the hips. The split into 2 separate dormers would further help to keep the dormers from dominating the rear roof and the proposed windows would be reasonably proportionate to the existing rear windows. Although the dormers would clearly be visible from the streets and neighbouring properties, they would sit comfortably within the street scene.

I conclude that the proposal in Appeal A would not harm the character and appearance of the house and the local area. It accords with policy D3(D1 and D11) of the London Plan (LP), policy CS1(B) of the [name] (CS), policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies (DMP), the RDG and the Framework, which aim to secure a high standard of design that 1 APP/M5450/D/22/3297509 3 Appeal Decisions APP/M5450/D/24/3339607 and APP/M5450/W/23/3330363 responds to the existing character of a place and protects the character of Harrow’s suburbs.

Conditions 4 and 5 of the existing planning permission for the house take away normal permitted development rights under the 2005 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, as amended (the GPDO). The following rights are removed, in summary: Condition 4 - extensions including roof extensions and porches, other alterations such as new windows, outbuildings and hardstandings; and Condition 5 – enclosures (walls, fences and gates) and access to the highway. This means that a planning application is required for any of these potential developments. The stated reasons for conditions 4 and 5 include safeguarding the character of the area.

As set out in the Framework, planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only used where they meet a set of 6 tests, including that they must be reasonable and necessary. The Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. The Government’s Planning Policy Guidance further advises that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the tests of reasonableness or necessity. The appellant also refers to old guidance contained in Government Circular 11/95, but this has been cancelled.

The Council draws my attention to another previous appeal decision2, which originally gave permission for this house before an amended scheme was built under permission [name]/1332/01/CON. [name] also removed some permitted development rights, in part to control the accretion of minor extensions and changes of form which would detract from the appearance and character of the building and its setting.

The house, as envisaged by previous decision-makers, is tightly constrained front and back. Much of the garden on the northern side is taken up with a parking area and an outbuilding. Another outbuilding sits on the southern side, next to [address] and there is also a mature tree on that side which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The house, especially its roof, and its plot are prominent in views from both streets and from neighbours’ properties. The scope for further extensions and outbuildings is therefore somewhat limited without giving the impression of cramped development, overcrowding the site and potentially harming the remaining TPO tree. Further additions or alterations to the roofs, such as hip to gable or side dormer extensions could significantly change their carefully planned character. Additional hardstanding could also harm the retained tree.

I therefore find that the main elements of condition 4 are reasonable and necessary, meeting the Framework tests. The restriction on porches in that condition does not serve any clear planning purpose, however, so should be excluded from the condition, allowing scope for these minor structures. 2 Cited by the Council as APP/M5450/A/00/1044243 4 Appeal Decisions APP/M5450/D/24/3339607 and APP/M5450/W/23/3330363

Turning to condition 5, the garden areas are already surrounded by high fences and walls so that there appears to be little reason to continue the special limitation of site enclosures. Likewise, the restriction on new accesses is not necessary to protect local character.

I conclude that most elements of condition 4 meet the tests set out in the Framework, including in regard to reasonableness and necessity, but that condition 5 does not meet these tests. Varying condition 4 and removing condition 5 therefore accords with the aspects of LP policies D3(D1 and D11) and G7(C), CS policy CS1(B), DMP policies DM1 and DM22 and the Framework that protect local character, including important trees.

Condition 6 removes permitted development rights for dormers, rooflights, windows and doors in the rear (eastern) elevation of the house, facing [address]. Such protection is necessary due to the close relationship between the 2 dwellings, but the controls in condition 6 effectively duplicate restrictions set out in conditions 4 and 7 (obscure glazing) so are not necessary. I conclude that condition 6 should not be restated in any new permission. The proposal accords in this way with LP policy D3(D7), DMP policy DM1 and the Framework, which taken together aim to ensure a high standard of amenity, including in relation to privacy, light and visual impact.

Neighbours have also raised concerns about the impact of the proposed dormer windows on privacy at [address]. These windows would mainly look out onto the side walls and roofs of No [address] to any undue overlooking. I find myself in agreement with the previous Inspector on this count and note that the Council raises no such objection.

Despite concerns by the Highway Authority, the Council raises no objection in regard to condition 1, which requires the site access and parking to be as originally approved. The original access and parking provision has apparently been altered as a result of another planning permission3. The current, revised access and parking layout (with a gate) make suitable provision for access to this lightly travelled cul-de-sac. Condition 1 can therefore be varied to reflect the existing situation, so that an access and some on-site parking continues to be provided. I note the concerns of local objectors about increased on-street parking, but have no evidence to show that this is a particular problem here. Ample on-street parking was available on [address] at the time of my site visit.

Appeal A - I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. A condition requiring the use of matching materials is needed in order to protect local character and appearance.

Appeal B – Conditions 1 and 4 of the existing planning permission are retained and renumbered, with variations as set out above. This decision establishes a 3 P/1369/21 5 Appeal Decisions APP/M5450/D/24/3339607 and APP/M5450/W/23/3330363 new, freestanding planning permission so it is necessary to re-impose all conditions which remain relevant. On one hand, the 2 conditions relating to the landscaping of the site no longer appear to be relevant or necessary 20 years on, so are not included in this decision. On the other hand, condition 7’s requirements about obscure glazing do remain necessary so that condition is re-imposed with appropriate wording for the new situation. The Council draws attention to the misalignment of the dropped kerb with the revised site access, but does not ask for any condition to deal with this matter. Finally, the Council indicates that it would have required a fire safety statement if it had granted this application, but has not suggested any condition for this purpose. Both main parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the new set of

Appeal A – I find that the proposal accords with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should succeed.

Appeal B – I find that certain aspects of the proposal accord with the development plan and that the conditions should be varied and removed accordingly. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed to this partial extent.

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 plan: 2TMC-H/04092023/PD-2/2.

The materials to be used in the construction of the vertical external surfaces of the dormer windows hereby permitted shall match those used on the roofs of the existing building. SCHEDULE B - APP/M5450/W/23/3330363

The existing access and parking area shall be retained solely for those uses.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no development which would otherwise fall within [name] to C and E to F in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

All first floor windows in the east elevation and the first floor bathroom window in the north elevation shall: (a) be of purpose-made obscure glass and (b) be permanently fixed closed. The windows shall be retained in that form. 6