Appeal 6003644

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , Brent, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1769, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: PL-050-001, PL-100-001, PL-100- 011, PL-200-001, PL-200-011, PL-200-012, PL-100-002, PL-100-012. And location plan scale 1:1250.

Access to the flat roof over the extension hereby approved shall be for maintenance purposes only and the flat roof shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, patio or similar amenity area.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers at No [address] in terms of its potential to appear so overbearing as to result in a sense of enclosure and loss of outlook.

The appeal property, [site address] (No 91) is a two-storey semi-detached house with an attached garage to the side and an existing full width single story rear addition. Due to the topography of the area the adjoining house No 89 is set about 0.3 metres or so lower than No 91.

The appellant proposes a flat roofed single storey rear extension with parapets to either side. The extension would project about 1.4 metres into the rear garden beyond the existing rear wall of an earlier addition. Taking into account the depth of the earlier rear addition the total projection from the rear wall of the original house would be about 4.5 metres. Like that earlier extension it would be built up to the boundary to No 89.

When taking into account the difference in ground levels the roof level of the proposed rear addition to No 91 would be about 4.15 metres above the garden level of No 89.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document - [name] and Alterations ([name] 2025) (SPD) is a material consideration, but it is only guidance, and it should not be applied to each and every property prescriptively to the exclusion of all other factors, including the physical circumstances and context of a site. It advises that single storey rear extensions more than 3.0 metres in depth for an attached home could also be up to 4.0 metres in height as long as they have an eaves height of no more than 2.5 metres along the boundary to any neighbouring properties.

[name] observed No 89 has two existing rear additions, that on the south-eastern side is set in from the common boundary to No 91 by approximately 0.35 metres and projects only some 1.5 metres from the original rear wall of the house. If extended as proposed the rear addition of No 91 would project about 3.0 metres in front of the southeastern extension to No 89. This addition has no side window facing No 91 and only a single door in its rear elevation giving access to the rear garden. I therefore do not consider that the proposed extension would result in a loss of outlook or increased sense of enclosure to the internal accommodation of the neighbouring dwelling.

However, the proposed extension would to some limited degree alter the existing sense of enclosure experienced by the occupiers of No 89 from their garden. However, I am not persuaded that the proposed modest extension would result in such a significant increase in a sense of enclosure or loss of outlook so as to appear so overbearing as to cause significant harm to the neighbouring occupiers living conditions.

I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed extension would not cause harm to residential living conditions. It would therefore accord with the objectives of Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041([name]

and the guidance set out in the SPD as they relate to, amongst other things, the protection of residential living conditions.

To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building. In the interests of certainty, I shall also impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

I have considered the additional condition suggested by the Council in light of the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of precision and enforceability, I have amended the Council’s suggested wording. The additional condition as amended will be included to protect neighbours’ living conditions, by restricting the use of the flat roof to maintenance or emergency purposes only.

Accordingly, for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.