Appeal 6003087

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the site address from the decision notice, as it more accurately describes the site.

I have taken the description of development from the decision notice, subject to minor alteration to remove reference to matters which do not constitute a description of development, as it more accurately describes the development to which the appeal relates.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the proposed first floor terrace.

The appeal site is located at the end of a set of residential properties, on the corner of [address] and [address]. Rear elevations of nearby properties, where visible from public vantage points, are predominantly 2-storey with external amenity areas above ground level largely absent.

The proposed development would include a rear terrace on the first floor. The terrace would be visible from public viewpoints along [address], and from nearby private viewpoints. At my site visit, I noted that the appeal site was undergoing construction works, and on the evidence before me permission was previously granted for a similar scheme which did not include the proposed terrace.

Given its location adjacent to [address], and as a result of its first floor nature, the proposed terrace would be clearly visible when seen from public and private vantage points. Although there is a nearby property with a small roof terrace that is also visible from [address], this roof terrace is notably smaller in scale and set further away from the road, and thus does not appear as prominent when compared to the appeal scheme, nor appear out of context with the established pattern of rear elevations. By contrast, given its greater extent and clear visibility immediately adjacent to the road, the proposal would contrast uncomfortably with the established pattern of two storey elevations without above ground external amenity areas that typically characterise nearby residential properties.

[name] acknowledge there is a larger terrace on a property located on the corner of [address] and [address], rather than providing justification for the appeal proposal, this terrace appears isolated within the street scene and, if anything, points to a need for similar proposals to be carefully considered if the character and appearance of the area is to be safeguarded. Moreover, I do not have full details before me relating to the particular circumstances of this development and whether the planning considerations are comparable to the appeal proposal. As such, I afford this limited weight in the determination of the appeal.

Given these matters, the proposed first floor terrace would appear as an alien addition to the building and the street scene and result in the introduction of a visible new and discordant feature within the built environment. Whilst the terrace may be smaller in overall scale when set against the host building as a whole, this would not diminish the harm I have found would arise.

My attention has also been drawn to another first floor terrace constructed elsewhere within the Borough. However, on the evidence before me this terrace is located a significant distance from the appeal site. I also do not know the relevant circumstances under which this was constructed or the planning considerations that may have applied, and the presence of a first floor terrace elsewhere within the Borough does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on this appeal.

Therefore, for the above reasons the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the proposed first floor terrace. The proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies DMP1 and BD1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 (2022). Amongst other matters, these policies require development proposals to be of a scale and design that complements the locality, and to be of high quality design.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and may be located close to public transport options. However, these matters weigh neutrally in the overall balance.

Whilst the proposal would facilitate the provision of additional dwellings, result in economic benefits arising during construction and occupation phase, and may seek to optimise amenity space provision for the flats, the scale of development proposed means these benefits would be limited and would be insufficient to outweigh the harm identified.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.