Appeal 3302633

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a part first-floor rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/1724, dated 10 May 2022, subject to the following conditions:

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 plans: [name] 3429B - 05/BK [name], 3429FF – 01/BK [name], 3429FF - 02/BK [name], 3429FF - 04/BK [name], 3429FF - 05/BK [name], and 3429FF - 06/BK [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [site address] and the wider area.

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling which has previously been altered including with a 6m deep single-storey rear extension across the full width of the property and a hip-to-gable roof extension with a ‘box-like’ dormer to the rear. The proposal is to add a first-floor extension to the rear over part of the existing single-storey extension to a depth of 3m and which would be contiguous with the dwelling’s side elevation and set away from the shared boundary with the attached property at No 153 by approximately 3.9m.

The Council argues that the proposal would in effect introduce a flat roofed first-floor rear extension that would not match the main roof design. This would not be the case. The extension would have a mono-pitched roof that would project from the main roof with tiles that are clearly stated to match the existing. Whilst there would be an obvious change between the steep pitch of the main roof and the shallow roof pitch of the extension, the transition would be reasonably seamless and I find nothing about the arrangement that would be complex or visually harmful.

The Council’s Residential Extensions & Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2 advises that it may often not be possible to erect a two-storey rear extension where there is an existing rear dormer window. Nevertheless, for the reasons given, I am satisfied that in this instance the proposal would not result in an unacceptable design. Consequently, there would be no conflict with Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 (LP), adopted February 2022, insofar as it, amongst other things, requires the materials, detailing and design of development to complement the locality, or LP Policy BD1 which requires good design that responds to local character.

A condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary as this provides certainty. In the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area a condition is required to ensure that the proposal is finished with materials that would match the existing.

For the reasons given, I conclude that there would be no harm to the character or appearance of [site address] , or to the wider area. Accordingly, and in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, the appeal is allowed.