London Borough of Harrow appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Harrow?
See the street and roof features cited in selected Harrow examples, and changes that reduced a dormer’s visual impact.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 197 of 269
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 73
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 123
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 193
- of 198 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Harrow LPA (51.597723, −0.341248). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Harrow appeal findings
Roof slopes, dormers and Harrow street patterns
The selected examples are extensions or roof changes, so they do not show every type of proposal.
Counted against appeals
Front roofs and familiar street patterns
A dominant front roof extension
A front roof extension was found visually intrusive because it dominated the roof slope, despite matching materials.
A conventional roof was not an exception
The Inspector described the existing roof and street relationship as conventional, not unique, and said this was precisely where the design guidance applied.
Porch and garage patterns defined the street
Linked porches and side garages were said to contribute to the distinctive appearance of nearby houses and the wider street scene.
Helped or needed
What softened the rear dormer
Less glazing eased the enlarged dormer
Removing roof lights and using sensitive materials reduced visible glazing, so the enlarged dormer was not considered awkward, dominant or incongruous.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the change would look dominant or intrusive?
- Does it identify the roof, porch or garage features that define the street?
- Do your drawings show how materials and glazing reduce visual impact?
An allowed extract states a conclusion but no design details, so it does not show what helped. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
14 May 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey front extension incorporating porch, single and two storey side to rear extension, rear dormer and external alterations (demolition of outbuilding at side).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As a result, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area and would not conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan, Policy DM1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies 2013, and guidance contained in the SPD. The relevant sections of these policies require new development to respond to local distinctiveness, having regard to the massing, bulk, scale and height of the original building.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
30 January 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
removal of rear roof windows to enlarge the existing rear loft dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the resultant dormer would enhance the appearance of the rear roof slope. It would significantly lessen the amount of glazing visible on the rear roof slope by removing two roof lights and I find that the dormer extension would, due to the use of sensitively chosen materials, lessen the visual impact of the dormer’s existing glazing. 10.Consequently, I find that whilst it would create a larger dormer, the proposed development would not appear awkward, dominant or incongruous, but would result in a more attractive rear roof slope. 11.Taking all of the above into account the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework or to London Plan (2021) Policies D3 and D11; to DMP1 Policy DM1; to Core Policy2 CS1; or to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2010), which together amongst other things seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
3 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Side and [name], 1 [name] to Facilitate a [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [site address] and the wider area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The existing roof configuration at No 7 is conventional, as is its presence in the street scene and relationship with neighbouring properties. The circumstances of the appeal property are not unique and, in my view, precisely represent the circumstances where the guidance contained within the SPD is intended to apply in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and wider area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
4 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a front porch, first-floor front to side extension, single and two-storey rear extension, external alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and wider area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this case, I find the proposal to be neither a modest roof addition nor a comprehensive remodel that would create a well-balanced and co-ordinated semi-detached pair. Whilst the proposed front roof extension may be subordinate in size to the dwelling as a whole, and notwithstanding the use of matching materials, it would stand dominant within the front roof slope and would be visually intrusive within the street scene. This would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of No 72 and the wider area. As such, it would fail to meet the objectives of the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2010) as far as it seeks to ensure residential extensions harmonise with the scale and style of the original building and the character of the area. There would therefore be conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), Policy CS1.B of the [name] (2012), and Policy DM1 of the Council’s Development Management Policies (2013). Between them, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that new development achieves a high standard of design that responds positively to local distinctiveness. For these same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed places.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
20 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
first floor front and rear extension, single storey front and rear extension, loft extension with rear dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Several houses, including the appeal property, have extended porches at the front which attach to side garages with a single pitched roof along their length. Garages have been converted on a few houses and, in the case of the host property, there is a first floor extension above the garage. Nonetheless, the features I have described contribute to the distinctive character and appearance of the host property and nearby houses and thus the wider street scene.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1