- Decision
- allowed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: N Teasdale
- Authority
- Harrow (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6004526
- Application reference
- PL/2879/25
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline permission (access reserved) for two detached single-storey dwellings with accommodation in the roof space, on a former grassed strip and part of the garden of No 147
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- inside settlement, garden land
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- N2
- Development plan policies
- London Plan 2021 D3, G6, London Borough of Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) GR1, GI3, Residential Design Guide SPD 2010
- Main issues
- privacy; biodiversity net gain
Summary
Outline permission for two bungalows with rooms in the roof, on a strip of former grassland beside 147 Eastcote Lane, Harrow. The Council refused on privacy and biodiversity net gain (BNG). The inspector found obscure-glazed, fixed-shut dormers removed any overlooking, and that although garden-based habitat gains could not count, off-site units or credits made the statutory BNG condition capable of discharge. Allowed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "the parties have had the opportunity to comment on the changes in relation to this appeal" (DL ¶6).
- Privacy: no harm. The Framework point was set aside: "the revised Framework has altered its approach and does not now refer to amenity in a general sense as it previously did but rather it now refers to amenity in some specific areas. I do not find reference to the Framework to be strictly applicable in the particular circumstances of this appeal" (DL ¶14).
- BNG baseline. "I reach the same conclusion as the Council that the baseline condition is grassland" (DL ¶19).
- Garden habitat. "where post-development gardens are private and have no public access, biodiversity net gains cannot be legally secured" (DL ¶24). "The mandatory 10% BNG could not therefore be secured on the site" (DL ¶25).
- Discharge route. Off-site creation or statutory credits are "a realistic and achievable alternative to onsite gains. Accordingly, this provides sufficient certainty that the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged" (DL ¶26). Accords with N2 (DL ¶27).
- Permitted development rights (DM6). "conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so" (DL ¶35); the Council's suggested restrictions were omitted.
Planning balance
Plan-led: no conflict with the development plan on either main issue, "having had regard to the development plan as a whole, the appeal is allowed" (DL ¶37). No S4 balance was run.
What made the difference
The fixed obscure glazing removed the privacy objection, and the inspector read the BNG test as whether the statutory condition is capable of discharge, not whether on-site gains are proven. The Council's own later approval of a near-identical scheme also shaped the conditions.
Transferable points
- The 2026 Framework no longer has a general amenity policy; one inspector did not find a Framework-based general amenity refusal "strictly applicable" (DL ¶14).
- Private gardens cannot count towards mandatory BNG, but a scheme can still pass if off-site units or credits are realistic (DL ¶24-26).
- DM6: conditions removing PD rights need clear justification (DL ¶35).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3 | not-engaged | mapped - privacy harm refused by Council citing the Framework; inspector holds the revised Framework no longer refers to amenity in a general sense, so not strictly applicable; obscure-glazed fixed dormers mean no harm (DL 12-14) | |
| N2 | accord | BNG baseline is grassland (2020 imagery), not gravel; gains in private gardens cannot count, but off-site units or credits are a realistic route, so the biodiversity gain condition is capable of discharge (DL 19-27) | |
| DM6 | neutral | suggested conditions removing PD rights omitted; DM6 allows this only with clear justification and none was given (DL 35) |
Key facts
- Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 6)
- New Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 adopted during the appeal, superseding the 2012 Core Strategy and 2013 DM policies (DL 7)
- Small Sites Metric shows +0.0421 units (30.04%), but relies on habitat in private gardens, which DEFRA's June 2026 metric guide says cannot be legally secured (DL 23-24)
- Council had since granted a materially identical scheme without the dormers (PL/0427/26); conditions aligned with it (DL 28)
- Two other appeals on the same site (6006890, 6005188) decided by the same inspector (DL 5)
- Costs application by the appellant, the subject of a separate decision (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.