Case Reference: 3314393

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 8 August 2023
by K Williams MTCP (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12th September 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/23/3314393
82 Drummond Drive, Stanmore HA7 3PE
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 1, Class
A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London
Borough of Harrow.
• The application Ref P/3597/22/PRIOR, dated 13 October 2022, was refused by notice
dated 6 January 2023.
• The development proposed is for a 6m single storey extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed, and prior approval is granted under the provisions of
Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as
amended) for a 6m single storey extension at 82 Drummond Drive, Stanmore
HA7 3PE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/3597/22/PRIOR
made on 13 October 2022 and the details submitted with it including drawings:
Site Plan; Existing Floor Plans Rev1; Existing Elevations Rev1; Proposed Floor
Plans Rev1; and Proposed Elevations Rev1.
Preliminary Matters
2. I have taken the description of development from the application form.
Although different to that on the decision notice, no confirmation that a change
was agreed has been provided.
3. Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)(GPDO)
grants planning permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to
limitations and conditions.
4. Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval
is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is
allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1(larger home extension), paragraph
A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application
where it considers that the proposed development does not comply, or that the
developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to
establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions,
limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.
5. It is not in dispute that the proposal falls within the other limitations set out in
Paragraph A.1. of Class A. However, where any objections are received to a
proposal, the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is required as
to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining
premises. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the LPA to assess the impact of
the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into
account any representations received. I have considered the appeal on the
same basis.
6. One representation was received from a property at the rear of the appeal site,
which has an adjoining boundary. However, the Council subsequently refused
the application on grounds relating to the effects of the proposal on the
amenity of the occupiers at No 80 Drummond Drive.
Main Issue
7. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the
living conditions of the occupiers of No 80 Drummond Drive.
Reasons
8. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property and its garden. It forms
part of a residential street of similar houses and is positioned between No 80
and No 84. To the rear of the property is a long garden, which has a garden
boundary with No’s 716 and 718 Kenton Lane.
9. The proposed extension would occupy the width of the main part of the house
only, extending to a depth of 6m, and with a maximum height of 3.5m. As such
this would leave a gap to the joint boundary with No 80. The Officer report
advises this gap is 2.31m. Although there is a gap the proposal would breach
the ‘two-for-one’ rule within the Council’s Residential Design Guide 2010
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The officer report suggests that to
avoid harmful effects the distance from the boundary should be increased from
2.31m to 3m.
10. The neighbouring property at No 80 has a single storey side extension rear
along the same building line as that of the appeal property. This element
projects further than the building line of the main dwelling and has a window
close to the boundary fence. This joint boundary consists of various close
boarded fencing, which extends close to the eaves height of the existing single
storey side extension on the host dwelling, resulting in a relatively high fence
in immediate proximity to the window. As such only a small section of the
neighbouring window at the higher level was visible above it. The majority of
the joint boundary, in proximity to No 80 was then screened by tall and dense
vegetation. As such the proposed visibility of the flank wall of the extension
would be limited as it would be well screened.
11. Whilst setting the extension a further 70cm away from the joint boundary to
meet the SPD guidance would reduce the effects, the breach in relation to the
‘two for one’ guide would be limited. In addition, its single storey would be
constructed under a flat roof of modest height which would reduce the
perceived bulk and mass of this feature. Thus, in this instance, I am not
persuaded that the overall scale and depth would be unduly oppressive to
outlook.
12. The existing high fence on the common boundary will already cause some loss
of light and shadowing when viewed from the rear windows and outdoor area
of No 80, particularly during the afternoon. Taking into account the height and
position of the existing fence, the distance to the boundary and limited and
reducing height of the proposed extension, the degree of additional
overshadowing would be minimal.
13. I consider that an adequate outlook would be maintained from the rear window
and outdoor area of No 80, and the proposal would not cause material harm to
the occupier of No 80’s living conditions due to loss of daylight or sunlight. The
Council has raised no concerns in respect of privacy, and I see no reason to
disagree.
14. No 84 Drummond Drive is the adjoining property and has been extended at the
rear on the joint boundary. The Council advises this projects to 3m. Although
the appeal extension would be perceptible from these rear windows, the
Council does not find that there would be unacceptable impacts upon this
property. I see no reason to disagree, as noted above the height of the
extension reduces and the orientation of the development would not cause
unacceptable effects in terms of sunlight or daylight.
15. The Council officer’s report also identifies that the houses at No’s 716 and 718
Kenton Lane to the rear of the appeal building as a neighbouring property. The
appeal property is separated from these by the length of the rear gardens. One
property had an enclosed garden which is bounded with a high close boarded
fence, and ground level views are partially screened by this. The other property
has an open boundary with the appeal garden. I am not presented with
detailed evidence that the amenity of any these properties would be harmfully
affected. Nevertheless, due to the distance between these houses and the
proposed extension I am satisfied that there would not be any harm arising in
respect of privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight. As such I concur with the
Council’s findings in this respect.
16. I have taken into account Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies
Local Plan document 2013 insofar as it relates to, and as evidence to support,
this matter, and the SPD. Based on the evidence before me and given my
conclusions above, the development would not be contrary to that Policy, albeit
the principle of development is established through the grant of permission by
the GPDO.
17. In light of all of the above, I am satisfied that the depth and overall scale of the
extension would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupants
of No 80 by reason of being overbearing or oppressive on outlook and loss of
daylight and sunlight.
Other Matters
18. Although the appellant is concerned that other applications have been allowed,
each application is judged on its own merits. Any Council actions are not a
matter before me, but in any event, they are required to assess the proposal
on all adjoining premises as I have done.
Conditions
19. The Council have suggested conditions specifying the approved plans and
matching materials. Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions in sections A.3 and A.4.
This includes the submitted details with the application and the use of similar
materials to the exterior of the existing dwelling house. As they are set out in
the legislation it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them in conditions.
Conclusion
20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed, and
prior approval should be granted.
K Williams
INSPECTOR