51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 May 2023 by P Storey BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 August 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/W/22/3307375 The Garden House, 51 Dennis Lane, Harrow, Stanmore HA7 4JU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr P Suntharalingam against the decision of Harrow Council. • The application Ref P/2245/22, dated 13 June 2022, was refused by notice dated 18 August 2022. • The development proposed is demolition of the existing detached dwelling, garage and three outbuildings and the erection of a replacement dwelling: consisting of a detached part two storey house with single storey side wings, integral double garage, rear single storey canopy and associated site works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan, including its effect on openness.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision • If it would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations that would amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 3. The appeal site lies in the Green Belt. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 4. The appeal site comprises a detached house and its associated outbuildings accessed via a driveway from Dennis Lane. The house occupies a spacious plot with an abundance of vegetation and greenery, particularly to the perimeter. Accordingly, the existing house and associated buildings are screened to a large extent from public views. Although within the Green Belt, the appeal site is surrounded by residential properties, some of which comprise dwellings of a similar scale set in similarly spacious plots. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M5450/W/22/3307375 5. Paragraph 149 of the Framework sets out that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt, unless they fall under one of several exception criteria. One of these criteria, set out at paragraph 149 d), is the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. 6. In this context, the proposed development would remain in the same use as existing. The Council’s officer report sets out that an increase of approximately 30% over the footprint, floorspace and volume of the original dwellinghouse is generally accepted as a ‘rule-of-thumb’ in establishing whether the new building would be materially larger than the one it replaces. In the absence of any specific definition in the Framework or the development plan of what will comprise a materially larger building, I give moderate weight to this figure as a guiding point. 7. The Council has included only the main house, and none of the outbuildings, in its calculation of the scale of the existing development. The appellant has taken a different approach by including the associated outbuildings in the calculation.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision In respect of paragraph 149 d), Tandridge DC v SSCLG & Syrett [2015] EWHC 2503 sets out that “building” should not be read as excluding more than one building, providing as a matter of planning judgment they can sensibly be considered together in comparison with what is proposed to replace them. Accordingly, it is reasonable to include the outbuildings in the calculation of existing scale. 8. There is further dispute between the parties regarding the Council’s calculation of the floorspace and footprint of the existing house, which show the floorspace would measure only approximately 10.3 square metres more than the footprint. On the basis that the dwelling is predominantly two-storey there appear to be clear inaccuracies with these figures. Accordingly, I have afforded them only very limited weight. 9. Notwithstanding the matters above, there appears some variation in the figures on which both main parties have based their assessment, although these differences are not significant.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision The figures submitted by the appellant set out that the proposed development would, when including the existing outbuildings, amount to a 24% increase to the existing floorspace, a 9.7% increase to the existing footprint, and a 35.9% increase to the existing volume. 10. It is established that openness has both a spatial and a visual aspect. Based on the appellant’s figures and factoring in the existing outbuildings, the proposed development would increase the floorspace and footprint by less than the 30% guide. However, the volume increase would exceed this figure by a not inconsiderable amount. Even considering the figure as a guide only, 30% is a generous allowance to fall within the Framework’s definition of ‘not materially larger’. As such, the proposed development would result in a significant volume increase that would reduce the spatial openness of the Green Belt. 11. In visual terms, based on my observations at the time of my visit, the proposed development would be largely hidden from outside of the property boundaries by the dense vegetation that occupies much of its perimeter.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision I am mindful that I visited when trees were in full leaf and there may be a greater degree of visibility from neighbouring properties during winter months. However, even with less tree coverage, very limited views of the development https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision I am mindful that I visited when trees were in full leaf and there may be a greater degree of visibility from neighbouring properties during winter months. However, even with less tree coverage, very limited views of the development https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M5450/W/22/3307375 would be afforded from public areas due to the position of the house set back from the public highway at the end of a long driveway. 12. In visual terms, when viewed from the front and rear, the massing of the central two-storey part of the house would be similar to the existing dwelling. The main ridge of the roof would be no higher than existing and the roof profile of the tallest part of the dwelling would, in visual terms, be no more intrusive than the existing building. The tallest central portion would be flanked to either side by lower height wings incorporating first floor accommodation in the roofspace. Whilst the main house would appear wider overall when viewed from the front and rear, this would be offset to an extent by the removal of the existing outbuildings. In particular, the existing garage includes first-floor accommodation and sits on raised ground to the north side of the house, where it contributes significantly to the overall massing of the existing development.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision By removing the garage and the other smaller outbuildings and consolidating their massing as part of the main body of the house, the effects on the visual openness when viewed directly from the front and rear would be limited. 13. However, when viewed from the side or at an offset angle, the effects would be rather different. Although the existing dwelling is set over two storeys, the main first floor element is comparably slimmer from front to rear than the proposed development. Whilst there is currently a two-storey gable projection to the rear, this covers only a small portion of the overall width of the dwelling. Furthermore, the single-storey canopy projection to the rear would extend significantly beyond the current footprint of the dwelling. Accordingly, the proposed development would considerably increase the overall massing over and above what currently exists. 14. Moreover, whilst the proposed roof lanterns would extend only negligibly above the existing roof height, the proposed pair of chimneys would extend significantly higher than both the existing and proposed ridge line. Given their substantial front-to-rear depth, this effect would be exacerbated in views incorporating their side profile.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision Although the existing chimney does extend slightly above the main ridge height of the dwelling, the proposed chimneys would extend significantly above this and substantially increase the overall height and massing of the dwelling. 15. It is acknowledged that there would be very limited visibility of the proposed development from publicly accessible areas. As such, the visual effects would be largely restricted to views within the boundary of the appeal site, and to a lesser extent from neighbouring properties. However, the proposed development would nevertheless result in some loss of visual openness. 16. For the reasons set out above, the development would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would result in a materially larger development than currently exists, which would reduce the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms and would therefore fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. This would result in encroachment of development into the countryside, which fails to accord with one of the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt, as set out in the Framework. 17.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision Accordingly, I conclude that the development comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the terms of the Framework and would conflict with Policy G2 of The London Plan – March 2021 (the LP), Policy CS1.F of the Harrow Core Strategy – February 2012 (the CS), and Policy DM16 of the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision Accordingly, I conclude that the development comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the terms of the Framework and would conflict with Policy G2 of The London Plan – March 2021 (the LP), Policy CS1.F of the Harrow Core Strategy – February 2012 (the CS), and Policy DM16 of the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M5450/W/22/3307375 Harrow Council Development Management Policies – July 2013 (the DMP), which together seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and the Framework directs that substantial weight should be given to this harm. Other considerations 18. The appeal site benefits from recent consents for prior approval for a single storey rear extension1 and a certificate of lawfulness for a single storey side extension and a rear dormer window2. If both consented developments were undertaken, the increased volume resulting from the proposed development would reduce, with the evidence indicating this would fall below the 30% guidance figure. Furthermore, if the rear extension granted under prior approval was considered as part of the baseline assessment, this would offset some of the visual effects of the ground floor rear canopy projection forming part of the proposed development. 19.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision However, on the basis that these schemes have not been constructed and they only offer an indication of what the existing buildings on site could comprise, they serve only a limited role in determining the realistic effect of the proposed development on the Green Belt. Moreover, even if they were to influence my assessment, they would not overcome the loss of visual openness resulting from the significant increased massing of the first floor and projecting chimneys. 20. The proposed development has the potential to deliver a more efficient and environmentally sustainable property than the existing dwelling. Whilst these factors would weigh in favour of the proposed development, the benefits would be limited in the context of the harm previously identified and that they would relate only to a single dwelling. 21. My attention has been drawn to a scheme granted planning permission for a replacement dwelling in 2016 at 4 Spring Lake3, a short distance to the southwest of the appeal site, which I observed from the street as part of my site visit. The submitted evidence indicates this site is also in the Green Belt. 22.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision I acknowledge the scheme at 4 Spring Lake appears to have been granted planning permission despite an increase in the volume, floorspace, footprint and height. However, whilst I have been provided with the relevant decision notice and plans, I cannot be sure of the full context surrounding the scheme. For example, whilst the submitted ‘Street Elevation’ drawing shows the outline of a number of ‘previous buildings’, I cannot be sure whether these comprised actual buildings or development proposals, and the extent to which they influenced the assessment. Notwithstanding these details, I am required to consider each development proposal on its own merits, as I have done so in this instance. Accordingly, this decision is of limited weight in my assessment. 23. The Council did not consider the proposed development to have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the wider area. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to reach a different conclusion on this matter, including its effects on the Harrow Weald Ridge Area of Special 1 P/1385/21/PRIOR 2 P/1562/21 3 P/3436/16 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M5450/W/22/3307375 Character. However, the absence of harm in this regard would be a neutral factor that would not weigh in favour of the proposals. Green Belt Balance and Conclusion 24. The Framework directs that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 25. I have identified that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm in the Green Belt. When taken together, the other considerations reviewed above do not clearly outweigh the harm that the proposal would cause. Consequently, the very special circumstances required to justify the development have not been demonstrated. As a result, the development conflicts with Policy G2 of the LP, Policy CS1.F of the CS, Policy DM16 of the DMP and the Framework. 26. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.

51 Dennis Lane, Stanmore, HA7 4JU — London Borough of Harrow — P Storey INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5