Replacement five-bedroom dwelling at 32 Gerard Road, Harrow

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing dwelling and building a detached five-bedroom home with roof accommodation, a leisure outbuilding, parking and landscaping.

“Demolition of dwelling and re-development to provide a detached two storey dwelling (1 x 5 beds) with habitable roof space; outbuilding at rear for leisure use; parking; vehicle access; hard and soft landscaping; bin / cycle storage…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement securing biodiversity measures and the claimed self-build exemption.

“1) Agree the reasons for approval as set out this report; and 2) Grant planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and issue of the planning permission including the insertion or deletion of conditions as deemed fit and appropriate to the development or the amendments to the legal agreement as required.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the replacement family home acceptable in principle, design, residential amenity, highways, parking, landscaping, flooding, fire safety and ecology terms.

“The proposed development complies with all relevant land use policies by providing a replacement family sized residential unit. The proposed development is also considered to be acceptable on grounds of character and design and to have an acceptable residential amenity impact.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Neighbouring properties produced objections about overdevelopment, scale, character, spacing, trees, biodiversity, privacy, light, noise and construction impacts, while highways raised no objection.

“Representations in Objection - 24 • The proposed development appears wholly out of character with surrounding area. • It is disproportionately large and excessively bulky with massing that is unsympathetic to the established pattern of development. • Particular concerns due to proximity to boundary with neighbouring properties. • Undermine character and sense of spacing and openness.”

“Loss of amenity for adjacent occupiers. • Materials. • Biodiversity and possible tree loss. • Inconsistencies in application. • Proposed leisure building should be smaller. • Loss of existing trees which provides screening for neighbouring properties and a habitat for wildlife. • Height of third floor is excessive and out of keeping when compared to surrounding properties. • The proposed extension would breach the 45-degree rule. • Loss of light to neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector urged refusal, while the applicant urged the committee to grant permission.

The committee’s concern

The committee considered the proposal’s bulk, mass, height and site coverage visually obtrusive and out of character, causing harm to residential and visual amenity.

“The Chair proposed that the application be refused on the following grounds:”

“The proposed development, by reason of excessive bulk, mass, height, and site coverage would appear as visually obtrusive and out of character where the houses are large dwelling houses, but have a degree of subtlety in design features and this would give rise to a loss of residential and visual amenity in the locality, contrary to policy GR1 of the new Local Plan (2021-2041), D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted to refuse the officer recommendation, and the refusal was unanimous.

“This was seconded by Councillor Zak Wagman, put to the vote and agreed.”

“The Committee voted and resolved to refuse officer recommendation.”

Minutes