Appeal 3352252

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal the subject of this appeal is for a new front porch. The original recessed porch was infilled without consent in 2018. The infilling of the recessed entrance was subject to an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the porch by October 2022.1

An application for a proposal including a new front porch and removal of the “infill door set to recessed entrance way to dwellinghouse”2 was refused in April 2019.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal property comprises a two storey detached dwelling situated in a prominent location, at the corner of [address] and [address].

The appeal property is located within a residential area, where dwellings tend to be two stories in height and either detached or semi-detached.

The appeal property is situated within the [address] Conservation Area which is characterised by the presence of mock Tudor detached and semi-detached dwellings set out on garden plots on a hillside above [name]. 1 Reference: E/18/0622. 2 Reference: 19/0433.

Common design features include distinctive mock-Tudor dwellings include decorative half-timbering, mullioned windows, recessed porches and two storey gables. The presence of these features makes a notable positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Dwellings are set back from wide, spacious streets and are generally situated within comfortable garden plots, with gardens and/or driveways to the front and longer gardens to the rear. This results in an attractive sense of uniformity. Further, the presence of grass verges, street trees, hedgerows and planting combine to provide for a green and spacious environment. 10.I observed during my site visit that whilst many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended, such changes generally appear to be in keeping with the character of the [address] Conservation Area and to respect the appearance of host dwellings. 11.I also noted during my site visit that the presence of dwellings with recessed porches, amongst other original features, make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area. In this regard, I am mindful that the Council’s Barn Hill Conservation Area [name] (2013) explicitly advocates for the retention of entrances in their original form and seeks to prevent the infilling of recessed entrances. 12.The proposed development would include the loss of the original recessed entrance. Further, it would result in the creation of a projecting flat-roofed porch. I find that this would result in the proposal drawing attention to itself as an unsympathetic addition that would fail to respect the host dwelling’s original form and would detract from its appearance. 13.In addition, I consider that the projection and flat roof of the proposal would result in it appearing awkward against the dwelling’s existing gable and bay, adding to the proposal’s visual conflict with the original form of the host dwelling. 14.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the prominent corner location of the appeal property, whereby changes to the front of the dwelling would draw attention to themselves. 15.As noted above, original recessed porches make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area. I find that the proposal, resulting in the loss of a recessed porch and the addition of an intrusive projecting porch, would result in a development that would be uncharacteristic of the [address] Conservation Area’s important traditional built attributes. 16.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would detract from and would not conserve the appearance of the [address] Conservation Area. Having regard to paragraph 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring. 2 17.In this regard, there is nothing before me that comprises or amounts to a public benefit that outweighs the harm identified. 18.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, to Policies BHC1 and DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan (2022) and to the Council’s Barn Hill Conservation Area [name] (2013), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.