Appeal 6005856

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.

Since the Council made its decision the Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) (HLP) has been adopted. This replaces the Harrow Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). Both parties have had the opportunity to comment, and both had nothing further to add to their respective cases. Having reviewed the updated policies, I find no material changes relevant to the main issues and have therefore assessed the appeal against the most up-to-date policies.

The initial planning application was submitted retrospectively, and at the time of my site visit the development had already been constructed. I observed that what had been built accords with the drawings submitted, and I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the development as implemented.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants of [address] (No. 21), with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site is located within a predominantly residential neighbourhood characterised by short rows of terraced housing, where rear extensions and alterations form a common feature of the established streetscape. The host property, No. 23, is an end-terrace dwelling. Appeal Planning Officer 6005856

The adjoining property, No. 21, contains a ground-floor window positioned close to the shared boundary, which appears to serve a habitable room. From what I saw during my site visit, the rear garden of No. 21 currently benefits from an open and spacious character, which positively contributes to the quality of the occupants’ living environment.

No. 21 itself has no significant rear projection however the wider terrace displays a mixed pattern of development. Notably, No. 19 and No. 17 both feature large rear extensions, demonstrating that sizeable additions are not uncommon within this part of the terrace. The existing outlook from the ground floor rear windows of No. 21 are already limited due to the proximity of the existing extensions at No. 23 and No. 19.

The additional rear development, when considered cumulatively with the existing extension, results in a structure of considerable depth and width that reads as a prominent addition to the host property. Its scale and massing, positioned close to the shared boundary, creates a clear sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No. 21. The extension now occupies a significant part of the immediate outlook from the neighbouring ground-floor windows, and the combined effect of its height, projection, and proximity further intensifies this enclosure, diminishing views from the rear ground-floor rooms and establishing an overbearing relationship.

The development also substantially reduces the openness of the neighbouring garden, replacing previously open views with a dominant and visually intrusive wall of development. Although the extension incorporates a slight step-in and a modest reduction in height, these alterations are limited in effect and do not meaningfully mitigate the overall impact. The structure continues to sit above the boundary fence, maintaining an oppressive presence when experienced from within the garden of No. 21.

While the gardens are south-facing, and therefore benefit from good levels of natural light, this does not outweigh the harm arising from the sense of enclosure created by the cumulative bulk of the extension. The development would therefore result in an unacceptable reduction in the quality of living conditions for the occupants of No. 21.

Therefore, the development would conflict with Policy GR1 of the HLP, D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide (2010). These seek, amongst other things, to ensure new development does not have significant adverse impacts on light and outlook to adjoining buildings.

The appellant has highlighted some schemes within the area that had similar aspects. I do not have the full details of the circumstances that led to these developments being approved and cannot therefore be certain that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. Consequently, I have assigned limited weight to these particular schemes.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal Planning Officer 6005856

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