Appeal 3288489

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling, located at the end of a short cul-de-sac comprising of properties of a similar design and appearance.

The original hipped roof of the appeal property has been converted to a gable end. The property also has a prominent front gable with bay windows at both ground and first floor level. It also has an existing single storey extension to the side which extends up the to the boundary of the site, beyond which are the rear gardens of dwellings in [address].

The proposal seeks to construct a first floor extension above the existing single storey side extension. Its design reflects the alignment of the ground floor extension and the boundary of the site and as such it would be wider at the front. It would also be set in from the edges of the ground floor extension by about 1.5 metres to the front and between 1.6 – 1.8 metres to the side.

The proposed extension would have a lower ridge and eaves height than the host dwelling and the width of the extension would generally be proportionate to that of the front elevation. Thus, the extension would appear subservient to the main dwelling in terms of its size, scale and bulk. The roof of the extension would be pitched to the front and the rear, with a central flat roof section. When viewed from the front, the extension would appear to have a pitched roof. However, its large, flat roof top would be apparent when viewed from the side.

I find that the design of the extension with its large flat roof element would be at odds with the roof form of the host dwelling which has a gable end. The extension, with its high level splayed side and central flat roof would appear as a visually discordant and incongruous addition which would not be well integrated with the existing dwelling. I appreciate that the side profile of the extension would not be readily visible from [address] however this does not alleviate my concerns regarding the harm caused to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The design of the proposed extension would also conflict with the guidance set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 2 - [name] and Alterations (2018) (SPD). Whilst not forming part of the statutory development plan, the SPD gives useful guidance in respect of extensions and alterations. In relation to two storey side extensions, it advises that flat roofed or ‘false pitch roofs’ are unacceptable. It further states that the extension should have a hipped side roof plane where the existing roof is hipped to the side and a gable end where it is gabled.

Whilst the small side dormer would be removed, this would not, in my view, outweigh the harm the appeal proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the dwelling.

Glimpses of the side roof profile would also be obtainable through the gap above the single storey elements between 28 and [address]. Furthermore, in the absence of any substantial screening, the proposed extension would clearly be visible from the rear gardens of the adjacent dwellings in [address]. The incongruous design of the extension in relation to the existing dwelling would be particularly apparent when viewed from the gardens of these properties, leading to further harm the character and appearance of the wider area in this regard.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies (2016) and Policy CP17 of the [name] (2010) which together require development to have a high level of internal and external amenity and seek to protect the distinctive suburban character of Brent from inappropriate development. It would also be contrary to the detailed design guidance set out within the SPD.

I acknowledge that following an earlier appeal1 the appellant sought pre-application advice and followed the guidance given in designing the proposal. However, whilst unfortunate, advice given at the pre-application stage is not binding on the Council. Furthermore, I am also required to determine the appeal based on its merits. 1 Appeal ref. APP/T5150/D/20/3244361

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.