Appeal 3345009

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken directly from the original planning application form. However, the Council changed the application description to ‘Proposed hip to gable extension and rear dormer window with 5x rooflights and Juliet balcony to the Dwellinghouse’ and this has been used on the decision notice, as well as by the appellant on the appeal form. I find the updated description to provide a more accurate representation of the proposed development and I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

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

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located within [address], a small residential cul-de-sac. Except for the appeal dwelling, properties within the street are semi-detached. The precise appearance of dwellings in the street also varies, including there being a variety in the style and design of roof forms, while several dwellings have been subject to previous alterations. Nonetheless, dwellings within the street (including the appeal property) retain a broad sense of continuity in their appearance, in part due to sharing common architectural features, their use of materials, as well as generally being of similar scale and proportions.

The appeal dwelling occupies a prominent position within the street, near its junction with the main road. The dwelling’s roof consists of hipped elements towards the front and rear of the dwelling, together with a projecting front gable that sits over two-storey bay windows. Currently the appeal dwelling displays a neat and attractive built form, that has a visual sense of balance.

Planning permission (ref:23/3287) has already been secured for hip to gable extensions to the appeal property, together with a sizeable flat roof dormer to the rear1. The works approved under permission 23/3287 are replicated within the current appeal scheme. However, the current proposal further involves gabling off an existing hipped roof element to the front of the property along its western elevation and incorporating an area of flat roof. In effect, this would result in the addition of a crown roof element towards the front of the appeal dwelling.

Together the totality of works proposed would result in an extremely bulky roof form that would provide the host dwelling with a rather dominant and top-heavy appearance. Additionally, the introduction of the crown roof at the front of the dwelling, alongside the alterations to the appeal property’s roof previously allowed, would result in the roof form having a highly convoluted and rather disjointed design and appearance.

The proposal would therefore result in an unsympathetic and jarring addition to the host property, with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This is despite the overall height of the proposed roof remaining similar to that of neighbouring properties.

In reaching the above view, I have had regard to the previously approved scheme, and the apparent design concerns surrounding the linking of hipped and gable end roofs. Nonetheless, I find the appeal scheme would still result in a disjointed roof form and that it would aesthetically be of greater detriment than that previously approved. I have also had regard to the precedent studies that the appellant has referred to in the surrounding area, including at no. [address]. However, the current appeal proposal is not directly comparable to these other approved schemes, as the design of the roof forms differ, whilst there are also contextual differences between the relevant host dwellings.

Given the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character of the host property and surrounding area, it would conflict with Policies DMP1 and BD1 of Brent's Local Plan 2019-2041 (adopted 2022). Together, amongst other matters these policies seek to promote development of high-quality design that complements its locality. The proposal would also not adhere to the advice of the Brent's Supplementary Planning Document 2: [name] and Alterations (adopted 2018), which amongst other matters seeks for alterations to roofs to be designed to complement the existing house and original street character.

For the reasons outlined above the appeal is dismissed.