Appeal 3305590

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the development in my banner from the application form, although I note that, as set out on the appeal form and on the Council’s decision, the scheme would include side facing dormer windows.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The Brent Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2 (Jan 2018) (‘SPD’) states that roof alterations should complement the house and the street. It continues that side dormers should be well designed, and should be set down from the ridge by at least 0.3 metre.

The properties on this part of [address] are set back slightly from the road, typically behind paved forecourts or gardens. Their form, style and layout are varied, and they include bungalows and two storey dwellings. As pointed out by the appellant, many have been extended, or altered.

The bungalows at No 91 and No 93 have an elongated footprint and sit on deep, narrow plots. Whilst the host has a long, flat-roofed rear projection, this pair’s shallow-pitched and gabled roofs, present a broadly similar and coherent appearance in the streetscene. As a result of this proposal, No 91 would have a higher, and much steeper, roof than its neighbour and, unlike it, it would have side-facing dormers.

As those dormers would extend from just above the host’s eaves to its proposed new ridgeline, they would have a considerable scale, and they would give that part of the property a very rectilinear, and an awkward, two storey, flat-roofed form.

Whilst the dormers would be set back from the host’s front face, as a result of their scale and their blank front walls they would have a stark and bulky appearance. Unlike most nearby dormers which are located to the rear, these ones would be fairly prominent in the streetscene. Notwithstanding the area’s diversity, the resultant building here would have an incoherent and eclectic form, which would stand out in the streetscene. Thus, the proposal would not represent good design, and it would conflict with the advice in the SPD.

For similar reasons, it would conflict with Brent Local Plan 2019 - 2041 (2022) Policy DMP1 which, amongst other things, requires the detailing and design of development to provide a high level of amenity and to complement the locality.

In its favour, the scheme would give the appellant and his family additional accommodation at a time when he has found it almost impossible to buy another property. However, that benefit, does not outweigh the significant harm that the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and, having regard to all other matters raised, including a representation by an interested party, the appeal is therefore dismissed.