Appeal allowed for extensive householder extensions at 56 Uxbridge Road, Harrow Weald
This appeal related to a comprehensive package of householder extensions at 56 Uxbridge Road in Harrow Weald, including a single and two-storey side and rear extension, alterations and extensions to the roof, rooflights, a front porch, changes to the site access and hardstanding, boundary treatment and a rear outbuilding.
Planning permission was refused by the London Borough of Harrow on the basis that the proposed two-storey side to rear extension would be excessive in width and bulk, would lack sufficient set-back from the front elevation and would harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area.
An appeal was submitted, and following a site visit the appeal was allowed by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.
The site and context
The appeal property is a semi-detached house on a wide and unusually spacious plot on Uxbridge Road, a busy distributor road characterised by a mix of large detached houses, varied architectural styles and nearby blocks of flats. The house is set well back from the road behind a deep, landscaped front garden and has substantial open land to the side, including a strip of trees and open space.
A key feature of the site is that the property is visually and physically separated from much of its surroundings. It does not sit within a tight suburban terrace or a uniform streetscene, and there is no close neighbouring dwelling on one side that would give rise to a ‘terracing effect’.
These site-specific characteristics were central to the appeal.
The council’s concerns
The council’s refusal focused on the scale and design of the two-storey side to rear extension. In particular, it considered that:
- the width and bulk of the extension would be excessive;
- the lack of a full one-metre set-back at first-floor level would harm the streetscene;
- the proposal would appear overly dominant and out of keeping with the host dwelling and its surroundings.
The refusal relied heavily on the council’s Residential Design Guide, which advises that side extensions to semi-detached houses should normally be set back from the front elevation to avoid a terracing effect.
The appeal case
The appeal case accepted that the proposal needed to be assessed as a whole, but emphasised that this did not mean that each individual element was harmful.
In particular, the appeal highlighted that:
- the site is unusually large and open, with no realistic risk of a terracing effect;
- the extension would remain clearly subordinate to the main house, with a hipped roof set below the main ridge;
- much of the additional bulk was to the rear, where it would not be visible from the street;
- the property already benefitted from a previous planning permission for a broadly similar scheme, and the appeal proposal represented a modest evolution rather than a fundamentally different form of development;
- comparable side extensions, including flush side extensions, had been approved nearby where site circumstances justified them.
The appeal also pointed out that the council had raised no concerns about neighbour amenity, and that there were no third-party objections to the proposal.
The inspector’s findings
The inspector identified the main issue as the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area.
In assessing this, the inspector accepted that although the proposed first-floor side extension would only be marginally set back from the front elevation, the guidance in the Residential Design Guide expressly allows for flexibility where there is sufficient space to the side or open land adjacent to the site. In this case, both of those criteria were clearly met.
The inspector also gave weight to the articulated design of the extension, the lowered roof form and the use of a hipped roof to the rear, which helped to avoid an overly bulky or monolithic appearance. Although the two-storey element extended well to the rear, the inspector concluded that it would not appear dominant in the street scene, particularly given the spacious setting and mixed character of the area.
Taking the site context as a whole, the inspector found that the proposal would not overdevelop the plot, would be proportionate to the size of the dwelling and would sit comfortably alongside other large buildings along Uxbridge Road.
The inspector concluded that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the area and would accord with the London Plan, Harrow’s development plan policies, the Residential Design Guide and national planning policy. The appeal was therefore allowed and planning permission granted, subject to standard conditions.
Why this decision matters
This case is a clear illustration of how Harrow’s Residential Design Guide is applied at appeal. While the guidance remains an important material consideration, it is not applied as a rigid set of rules. Where site circumstances justify a more flexible approach, inspectors are willing to depart from standard set-back requirements and assess proposals on their merits.
The decision also demonstrates the importance of context in Harrow appeals. Properties on large, open or visually disconnected plots are not directly comparable to typical suburban houses, and applying standard design assumptions without proper regard to context can lead to unsound refusals.
For a broader explanation of how this approach plays out locally, see our main page on planning appeals in Harrow.
Considering an appeal in Harrow?
If your planning application has been refused in Harrow, particularly on the basis of scale, bulk or alleged harm to character, an appeal may be worth considering. Please do not hesitate to contact us for some advice on your refusal.
