Appeal 3292215

The appeal is dismissed in so far as it relates to the proposed single storey rear extension.

The appeal is allowed in so far as it relates to the proposed loft conversion with rear dormer window and 1 front rooflight at [site address] , London [postcode] and planning permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. 21/4160, dated 31 May 2021 subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawing numbers (in so far as they relate to the loft conversion): Site Location Plan Proposed Floor Plans – [name]-A1-MM-03 Rev 01 [name] – [name]-A1-MM-04 Rev 01

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the roof alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Since the application was determined, the Brent Local Plan has been formally adopted. My decision takes this into account.

The Council raises no concerns in relation to the proposed loft conversion. On this basis, the main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed single storey rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal relates to a mid-terraced dwelling, sitting within a row of similar properties. The proposal seeks to add a box dormer to the rear roof profile and a single rooflight to the front roof profile in order to facilitate a loft conversion. As explained, the Council raises no issue with this element of the scheme, explaining that it complies with the guidance contained within its adopted Supplementary Planning Document 2 titled ‘[name] and Alterations’ (SPD). I see no reason to disagree.

The Council does, however, have concerns about the single storey extension which would be introduced to the rear of the property. This proposed addition would span the full width of the plot and would project some 4 metres from the main rear elevation of the host dwelling. It would have a largely flat roof, apart from the section closest to No. [address], which would have a mono-pitch.

The proposed single storey rear extension would not harm the outlook from the rear of No. [address] because this property also has a single storey flat roof extension projecting along the shared boundary. However, the attached property on the other side, No. [address], has not been extended to the rear. The proposed extension would project 4 metres along the boundary with No. 14. This would be 1 metre further than the maximum depth of 3 metres for a single storey rear extension to a semi-detached or terraced dwelling endorsed by the SPD. Whilst this guidance does allow for a deeper extension, this is on the proviso that it is set off the boundary by a proportionate amount ‘to protect neighbouring residential amenity’.

Even accounting for the fact that the roof of the proposed extension would rise away from the boundary with No. 14, the large expanse of its side elevation and roof would be much taller than the existing wall which defines the shared boundary. As a result, it would be readily visible from the nearest ground floor room at the rear of this property and also from its patio area. In my view, the effect would be unduly dominant and overbearing.

For this reason and despite an absence of formal objection from the occupiers of No. [address], I find that the proposed single storey rear extension would unduly harm the outlook for the occupiers of this attached property. In this regard, the proposal conflicts with policy DMP1 of the adopted Brent Local Plan and the SPD which seek to safeguard appropriate levels of residential amenity. 2

The Appellant argues that the dwelling is structurally sound, that the proposal would have no impact in terms of highway safety and that it would not involve the removal of any trees or hedgerows. These matters are not disputed but they are neutral factors in the overall planning balance.

The Appellant also refers generally to other single storey extensions within the local area. However, I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind these additions and I have considered the proposal before me on its individual planning merits in any event.

I conclude that the proposed single storey rear extension would unacceptably harm the outlook from the rear of the attached property, No. [address]. As a result, this element of the proposal conflicts with the development plan policies outlined above. The arguments advanced by the Appellant do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict therefore this element of the appeal does not succeed.

As explained, the Council raises no concerns about the proposed loft conversion. As this element is physically and functionally separate from the proposed single storey extension, I am satisfied that a split decision can be issued in this case.

In addition to the standard conditions which limit the lifespan of the planning permission and direct that the development takes place in accordance with the approved plans, the Council has suggested one other condition relevant to the loft conversion in the event the appeal succeeds. I agree that the external finishing materials of the loft conversion should match those of the host dwelling in order to ensure a visually acceptable development. In granting planning permission for this element of the scheme, I shall impose these