A homeowner in North Harrow came to us after running into an unexpected problem while extending her new home.
She had recently bought the house and obtained planning permission for a series of extensions, including ground-floor extensions, a roof extension and conversion of the loft into living accommodation.
While the extensions were being built, a hip-to-gable roof extension was added and a large rear dormer was built. They were not quite what had been shown on the approved plans, but as far as the homeowner understood it, they were permitted development and did not need planning permission at all.
One of her neighbours made a complaint to Harrow council and one of their enforcement officers came to take a look at the works.
The council then wrote to tell her that the development had not been built in accordance with the approved plans. She was given 28 days either to alter the house so that it matched the original permission or submit a retrospective planning application. The council warned that formal enforcement action could follow.
We have written before about how enforcement action is particularly common when it comes to dormer roof extensions.
She hired an architect and prepared and submitted a retrospective planning application for what had been built, which the council then refused.
Its concern was the scale and bulk of the rear dormer when seen together with the rear extensions and hip-to-gable roof alterations. It considered that the development dominated the original bungalow and was harmful to the character of the house and the wider street.
We appealed against this decision and were delighted when the appeal was successful and planning permission was granted.
The inspector agreed with the council that the alterations were quite large and that they had significantly changed the scale and appearance of the original bungalow.
But he also agreed with us that this was an unusual house. It sits on a triangular corner plot, squeezed between much larger two-storey houses, in a street with a mixture of building styles and roof forms. Our argument was that the development needed to be judged in that real context, rather than simply against the council’s standard design guidance.
The inspector found that the original bungalow had itself appeared somewhat out of place between the neighbouring two-storey houses. He also found that the works over the former garage had improved the appearance of that part of the house and that the rear dormer, despite its size, was unlikely to draw the eye or have a noticeably adverse effect on the street scene.
On balance, he concluded that the development did not cause unacceptable harm. The appeal was allowed and retrospective planning permission was granted.
The homeowner could keep the extensions to her new home and the threat of enforcement action fell away.
If you are facing enforcement action, please do not hesitate to contact us for assistance.
Harrow’s enforcement team is highly active, and cases like this one are increasingly common. For a full picture of how the council operates — and what to do if you receive a notice or letter — read our guide to planning enforcement in Harrow.
