Appeal 3355775

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.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the Pinnerwood Park Estate Conservation Area (CA).

At the time of my site visit, construction work was being carried out at the property.

The appeal site is located within the Pinnerwood Park Estate CA. I have therefore had regard to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which places a duty upon the decision-maker, in the exercise of planning functions, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) further advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The CA is a cohesive residential development of early 20th century houses. [address] is relatively unaltered and has retained an open garden suburb character with a generally consistent architectural style. The appeal property makes a positive contribution to the special interest of the CA due to the retained original design details and high-quality materials. Appeal Planning Officer APP/M5450/D/24/3355775

The appeal property is semi-detached and possesses a cohesive design and symmetry with the neighbouring adjoining property (No. [address]). The appeal property features a simple timber canopy front porch, a typical and unifying design feature present on the majority of the properties in the Close and surrounding roads. The proposals would replace the existing porch with an enclosed front porch featuring a flat roof and parapet wall design.

The porch would be set back from the front and side building line. However, although it would be fairly modest in scale, and it is clear from the appeal documents that much consideration has been given to the fenestration, materials and detailing to match the existing dwelling, it would still significantly alter the appearance of the appeal property.

The open driveways at the front of the properties on the Close increase the visibility of the structure, and would disrupt the uniformity with No.[address] and other dwellings on the Close. The changes to the porch would introduce a more contemporary appearance and the loss of the original porch would detract from the character of the host property and the cohesiveness of the CA as a whole. The development therefore fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. This view is supported by the Conservation Area Appraisal and [name] ([name] 2009) (the ‘[name] and [name]) which states it is important for the character of the area that existing original porches are retained, or where necessary replaced in close replica.

It is evident that there are existing variations in design details between dwellings, some of which were deliberate features in the original design to add variation and a small number of which are more modern alterations. The appellant has drawn my attention in particular to No. [address] and nearby No. [address], which have been altered more significantly and both feature enclosed front porches. Whilst the appellant notes that their design is different and is of higher quality, the examples show that enclosed porches do exist in the area. However, these examples are in the minority and reinforce that enclosed porches are not a characteristic of the original properties or a positive aspect of the character and appearance of the CA.

For these reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA in conflict with Section 72 of the Act. The proposal would be contrary to Policy D3, (part D(1) and part D(11)) and Policy HC1 of The London Plan (2021) which, amongst other things seek to ensure development enhances character, responds to local context and conserves and avoids harm to heritage assets. It would also be contrary to Policy CS1.B of the [name] (February 2012) and Policy DM1 and DM7 of the Harrow Development Management Policies (July 2013) and the Framework which, amongst other things, seek that development secures a high standard of design, protects and enhances heritage assets and contributes to the character and local distinctiveness of an area. The proposal would also be contrary to guidance in the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2010) which states, with regard to front extensions, that they must reflect and complement the surrounding street scene. The proposal would also be contrary to guidance in the [name] and [name] which seeks to retain original features and details. Appeal Planning Officer APP/M5450/D/24/3355775

I am satisfied that the harm to the CA would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm, and in such instances paragraph 215 of the Framework states that such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. However, although there would be an undoubted private benefit to the appellant from the proposed development, no public benefits have been presented against which to weigh against the less than substantial harm to the CA.

The appellant’s wish to provide more storage space, improve security and energy efficiency are understood and the willingness to comply with any drainage requirements is noted, however these considerations do not outweigh the harm identified. I recognise that the proposed development would be acceptable with regard to the amenity of neighbouring properties, although the absence of harm in this regard carries no significant weight.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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