Appeal 6004472

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the determination of this application, the London Borough of Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) (the Local Plan) has been adopted and now forms part of the adopted development plan. As such, the [name] (2012), the Development Management Policies (2013), and the Supplementary Planning Document Garden Land Development (2013) have been superseded, and I have determined the appeal on this basis. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on this, and as such I am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced.

Amended plans have been submitted by the appellant since the Council’s decision, which include minor alterations to the internal layout of the proposed dwelling to increase the size of the bedrooms.

I have considered the amended plans on the basis of the Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 judgement. As the amended plans do not relate to substantive changes to the overall scheme, I consider no interested party would be prejudiced by considering such plans. I have therefore had regard to the amended plans in reaching my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the site is suitable for the proposed development, having regard to relevant policies for the location of housing and the Council’s spatial strategy; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers with specific regard to internal living space; and • the effect of the proposal on flood risk.

Policy GR10 of the Local Plan sets out the Council’s locational strategy for development on infill and backland sites, garage sites, garden land and non-designated open spaces.

Whilst the appellant contends that the appeal site does not form garden land, the Local Plan defines ‘garden land’ as any land within the curtilage of a building the principal use of which is residential. As such, the appeal site comprises garden land for the purposes of the Local Plan.

Part b) of Policy GR10 supports development on garden land where it makes a comprehensive use of land, taking into account the potential for redevelopment on surrounding parcels. The policy goes on to say that housing on garden land on individual plots will not generally be considered to be comprehensive.

The proposal would utilise an area of garden land between the side elevation of the appeal property and [address] (No. 5). The rear gardens of properties adjacent to [address] lie to the rear of the appeal site. The appellant contends that the proposal offers a comprehensive use of available land, nonetheless there is little before me to demonstrate the redevelopment of surrounding parcels has been considered. As such, there is limited evidence before me to suggest the proposal would be comprehensive development for the purpose of Policy GR10 of the Local Plan.

The appellant raises Policy HO3 of the Local Plan which is supportive of small sites. Nonetheless Policy HO3 also requires such development to comply with Policy GR1 of the Local Plan, with which I have found conflict.

For the above reasons, the site is not suitable for the proposed development having regard to relevant policies for the location of housing and the Council’s spatial strategy. It would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies 01, GR1, and GR10 of the Local Plan. When read together these require development to make a comprehensive use of land.

Policy GR10 of the Local Plan relates in part to garden land development, setting out criteria on which such development would be assessed. Policy GR10 part a) requires proposals on garden land to be of a high-quality design, and of a scale and intensity appropriate within the context it is located in. Further, whilst Policy 01 of the Local Plan acknowledges that character will evolve over time, it requires new development to respond positively to the existing character.

The area surrounding the appeal site is residential in character and primarily formed of semi-detached and terraced dwellings adjacent to the highway. These groups of buildings are similar in their architecture, form and materials, giving the street scene an attractive rhythm. Some of these dwellings have been extended and altered such as the neighbouring semi-detached pair, however the majority of these alterations remain subservient to the host dwelling facilitating the retention of their original character.

The appeal property forms part of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings at one end of [address]. There is a notable gap at two storey level between these pairs of dwellings and neighbouring properties, allowing views beyond and giving this section of the street scene an open character. The appeal property and attached dwelling share a symmetry in their design, with two-storey front gables forming the dominant features, contributing to the aforementioned attractive rhythm of the street scene. Whilst the appeal dwelling includes a side extension projecting notably beyond the end gable, this is single storey and flat roofed, limiting its visual presence and thus preserving the symmetry of the pair, including the gap between the neighbouring dwelling above ground floor level.

The proposed two-storey dwelling would project notably beyond the existing first-floor gable of the appeal property, substantially increasing its width above ground floor level. It would therefore appear a bulky and dominating addition, unbalancing the existing symmetrical appearance of the semi-detached pair and appearing as an incongruous feature within the street scene. The massing of the proposal would lessen the visual prominence of the front gable feature, further harming the aforementioned symmetry. The proposal would erode the existing generous gap above ground floor level between the end gable and neighbouring dwelling, harming the openness of the area.

The materials proposed would reflect those used on the appeal property, the proposed dwelling would be set back from the existing front elevation, and it would utilise a hipped roof and lower ridge line, encouraged within the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2013) (the SPD). Nonetheless these do little to mitigate the substantial bulk of the proposal in relation to the host dwelling and its harm to the character and appearance of the area.

For the above reasons, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policies 01, GR1 and GR10 of the Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) (the Local Plan), and Policies D1, D3, and D11 of the London Plan: the Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (2021) (the London Plan). When read together these require development to be of a high-quality design, respect the character and context of the locality, and positively respond to local distinctiveness.

Minimum internal space standards for new dwellings set out within the London Plan require four-bedroom, six-person dwellings to have a minimum gross internal floor area of [address] metres to provide adequate living space for occupiers.

The appeal property including the attached annex is above the minimum internal space standards for new dwellings. The proposal would create a bedroom within the third storey of the appeal property and remove the existing annex, making it a four-bedroom, six-person dwelling.

The proposal would substantially decrease the living space through the removal of the annex whilst adding a bedroom within the second floor, giving the appeal property a gross internal floor area of approximately [address] metres, below the minimum stipulated within the London Plan. As such, it would not provide adequate living space for its occupiers. Whilst the appeal property is to be retained, it would reduce living space through the demolition of the annex in addition to adding a fourth bedroom. Given the level of alteration, it is appropriate to apply the aforementioned space standards to the appeal dwelling.

The floor area and width of bedroom three on the first floor of the appeal property would be below the standards stipulated within the London Plan. Nonetheless, its dimensions would remain unchanged from the existing situation and therefore it is appropriate to depart from these minimum dimensions in these circumstances. Further, the bedroom is likely to have existed prior to the publication of the London Plan.

Amended plans were submitted altering the layout of the proposed three-bedroom dwelling to ensure all three bedrooms meet the minimum standards within the London Plan.

In light of the above, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of future occupiers with specific regard to internal living space. As such, it would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan and Policies HO2 and GR1 of the Local Plan. When read together these require development to safeguard the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, and comply with the minimum internal space standards.

The Council refers to Policy D7 of the London Plan within the decision notice. Nonetheless, this policy relates to accessible housing and is therefore not relevant to this main issue.

The majority of the appeal site is located within [name] 1, however it is also within [name] 3a and 3b, and a Critical Drainage Area. The proposed new dwelling would occupy the existing footprint of the annex and result in a relatively small increase in the existing built footprint. Further, the proposal would replace existing impermeable surfaces such as the driveway and patio areas with grass and permeable paving. Reducing the existing permeable areas overall. [name] minded to allow the appeal, a full drainage strategy could be secured by the imposition of a condition to ensure that permeable surfaces and thus surface water runoff for the appeal site are not increased.

As such, the proposal would be acceptable in terms of flood risk. It would therefore comply with the relevant provisions of Policies SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan, and Policies 08, CN3, and CN4 of the Local Plan. When read together these require development to not increase the risk or consequences of flooding and reduce the risk of surface water flooding.

The proposal would result in the creation of a single dwelling on a small brownfield site, within a location close to shops and services. Nonetheless, given the scale of the proposal, these benefits do not outweigh the above identified harm.

Whilst the proposal may not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, a lack of harm is not a benefit and therefore weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.