Appeal 6004627

The appeal is dismissed.

The Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) (the Local Plan) was adopted on 24 March 2026. This now forms part of the statutory development plan and replaces policies of the Harrow Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), and I have therefore had due regard to this in my decision. The Council has confirmed which policies are most relevant to the decision and both parties have been provided with the opportunity to make representations on these policies.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants of the ground floor flat, having particular regard to privacy, outlook, noise and disturbance.

The appeal relates to an end terraced property comprising a ground floor commercial unit with residential accommodation above. A rear yard serves both uses and can be accessed from the commercial unit, the residential accommodation, a gated path from [address], and a road providing access to the rear of the properties fronting [address]. The proposal includes a rear extension to create a self-contained ground floor flat. This flat, together with the 3 proposed flats above and the retained commercial unit, would share access to the rear yard, including proposed cycle and bin storage.

The proposal includes ground floor windows in both side elevations which would serve the bedroom and living area of the proposed flat. The windows on the northern elevation would face an access route leading from the rear of the commercial unit into the yard. The windows on the southern elevation would face the pedestrian route used by occupants of the upper floor flats to access the proposed cycle and bin stores. Due to the location of these windows and their close proximity to the access routes, there would be clear opportunities for overlooking into the ground floor flat.

Although access along the southern side of the building would be limited to occupants of the upper floor flats, it would still involve a number of people unrelated to the ground floor use passing directly alongside these windows. Whilst the appellant states that use of this route would be limited and sporadic, occupants would nevertheless need to pass the windows in order to access the bin and cycle stores. In addition, pedestrian access to the upper floor flats could also be gained from the rear access road, resulting in further use of this route. It therefore cannot be ensured that future occupants of the ground floor flat would benefit from an adequate level of privacy.

The installation of obscure glazing to the windows in the northern elevation would help protect the privacy of occupants from people using the access route serving the rear of the commercial unit. However, to ensure privacy was maintained, these windows would also need to be fixed shut and non-opening.

In relation to the southern side of the building, the appellant has suggested that a defensible space could be created between the ground floor flat and the pedestrian path leading to the rear yard, including soft landscaping intended to discourage close proximity to the windows and reinforce the perception of a private residential environment. However, given the limited width between the building and the side boundary, low level planting would not prevent those using this path from being able to look directly into the windows, thereby undermining the privacy of future occupants.

Taller planting close to the windows would likely create an unduly enclosed environment, particularly if the windows in the northern elevation were also obscure glazed, resulting in poor outlook for the occupants. I am therefore not satisfied that sufficient space exists to provide an effective screen or buffer that would secure an acceptable level of privacy whilst also maintaining adequate outlook.

Although not identified within the reason for refusal, the Council’s officer report also raised concerns regarding noise and disturbance arising from activity associated with both the commercial unit and the upper floor flats. Whilst use of the rear residential access route would result in overlooking to the ground floor windows, it is unlikely in itself to generate a significant degree of noise and disturbance.

However, the commercial use is likely to generate a level of activity beyond that typically associated with a residential environment. Given the limited width of the access route serving the commercial unit, users would pass in very close proximity to the side wall and windows serving the flat. The appellant has set out that this is not a principal access and would be used infrequently, primarily for servicing purposes. Nevertheless, whilst customers would not use the route, it could still be used regularly for servicing, deliveries, and access to the bin store, with additional pedestrian access available from the rear road. As there would be no meaningful restriction on use of the access route, the resulting activity would likely give rise to a level of noise and disturbance beyond that which future occupants could reasonably expect. Consequently, the proposal would fail to provide acceptable living conditions in this regard.

Outlook from the bedroom would likely be limited to the north by the boundary treatment separating the site from the neighbouring property, and this would be further restricted if obscure glazing were installed. However, the bedroom would benefit from a more open aspect to the south across the adjacent car park. The living space would contain 3 windows in separate walls. Although outlook from the side windows would be constrained by timber boundary fencing, the rear window would provide outlook onto a small, enclosed garden serving the flat. Views from this window would also be towards a fence. However, due to the distance of the fence from the rear window, it is unlikely that this would be overbearing or unduly dominant to users of the living space. Overall, despite the bedroom not benefitting from a dual aspect, the proposed accommodation would provide an acceptable level of outlook.

The Mayor of London: London Plan Guidance - [name] (2023) seeks to ensure that development is designed with residents’ wellbeing in mind. This includes the provision of adequate privacy and avoiding locating bedrooms and living rooms adjacent to noise-generating ancillary spaces. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2010) also highlights that schemes should provide a high standard of amenity and privacy for occupiers of new development, and proposals that fail to secure a high standard of design and layout for occupants will not be accepted. As the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions in respect of privacy, and due to noise and disturbance associated with the commercial premises, it would conflict with the aims and objectives of this guidance.

I conclude that, whilst there would be an acceptable level of outlook, the proposed development would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants of the ground floor flat, having particular regard to privacy, noise and disturbance. As such it would conflict with Local Plan Policy GR1 and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021). These seek to ensure that, amongst other things, proposals are of high-quality design and ensure that amenity for future occupiers is safeguarded, including the provision of appropriate privacy and preventing or mitigating the impacts of noise.

The appellant has referred to an appeal decision at 57 Station Road1, relating to a proposed first floor flat. Whilst this decision has primarily been cited in relation to outlook, and I have found that the accommodation would be acceptable in this regard, the circumstances are not directly comparable. In the case of the current appeal, residential accommodation is proposed on the ground floor, immediately adjacent to pedestrian access routes. Similarly, although planning permission has been previously granted for residential accommodation within the upper floors of the building2, these did not include ground floor living accommodation and are therefore materially different from the appeal proposal. Accordingly, these decisions do not alter my conclusions regarding the living conditions that would be experienced by future occupants of the proposed ground floor flat. 1 APP/M5450/W/24/3345589 2 P/0358/23 and PL/3125/24

Whilst there may be examples elsewhere within the urban area of side windows positioned adjacent to communal or shared access routes, no specific examples have been provided as part of the appeal. Nevertheless, the proposal before me must be assessed on its own merits and, for the reasons set out above, it would fail to provide acceptable living conditions.

The proposal would provide an additional self-contained residential dwelling, above what has been previously granted at the site, within an accessible town centre location. However, the contribution would be limited given the small scale of the proposal and I therefore afford these benefits moderate weight. There would also be some short-term economic benefits during construction works, and occupants would potentially support local businesses. However, this contribution would be small, due to the modest scale of the development, and I therefore attribute this limited weight. There would also be some limited benefits to biodiversity and sustainable design objectives from the provision of the green roof.

The proposal would provide appropriate cycle and bin storage facilities, a private external amenity space for the ground floor unit, would meet minimum space standards, would retain an active ground floor commercial unit and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, these considerations are neutral in the overall planning balance.

Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes, including building on service yards, paragraph 124 states that this should also ensure healthy living conditions. Whilst the proposed development would provide an acceptable level of outlook, it would fail to provide acceptable living conditions in respect of privacy and due to noise and disturbance, and this harm would be significantly felt by future occupants of the ground floor flat. I afford this harm significant weight and, when balancing this against the benefits of the proposal, it would not be outweighed.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.