Appeal 6006090

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host properties and overall terrace; and • the provision of housing choice and supply in the area.

The area around Brondesbury Park train station is a neighbourhood of Kilburn, providing a mix of residential and commercial uses. [address] is an established residential street predominantly comprising traditional Victorian terraces, well-presented with turreted bay windows and decorative recessed porches along a street supplemented by mature street trees.

The two appeal properties are sub-divided into flats. They sit in a mid-terraced position with light wells and steps to the frontages, a conjoined three storey rear outrigger and narrow rear gardens. They are reflective of, and in keeping with, the character and appearance of the area.

In terms of the proposed single storey rear extensions, the scale goes significantly beyond that set out in the council’s [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2025 (SPD). Whilst the width and height would be compliant, the proposed extensions would project 5m from the rear elevation of the outrigger as opposed to the 3m limit specified in the guidance.

In this instance, there would be adequate amenity space retained, the overall height and eaves height would be limited by the crown roof structure, and the width would step in at the far section of the projection to reduce scale and massing further away from the primary dwelling. Materials would appropriately match the host dwellings.

The SPD recognises that context for proposed development is of importance and some of the design does reduce bulk and massing, but I do not agree the extension would not be viewed as disproportionate. The increased depth would be substantially greater than other examples within the terrace which form part of its prevailing character and appearance. The extensions would apply to two dwellings and would lead to a significantly strident and rather dominant appearance which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwellings and terrace.

Whilst visibility of the rear of the site would predominantly fall to surrounding dwellings, this is not justification for the harm generated to the rear elevation and the terrace as a whole. While there is no matter of dispute raised regarding the proposed rear dormer extension or front elevation rooflights, this does not mitigate or outweigh the other harm I have found.

For the above reasons, the proposed single storey rear extensions would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwellings and the terrace, thereby conflicting with Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 (the Local Plan) which amongst other things requires development to complement the locality in terms of layout, scale and design.

In addition, the scheme would be contrary to the SPD which requires extensions to outriggers to have a maximum depth of 3m from the existing rear elevation.

The appeal properties have been configured as flats for an extended period of time and the absence of planning history to confirm their conversion from family dwellings does not undermine the contribution that the flats have made to the local housing supply. Local Plan Policy BH10 makes provision for the net loss of dwellings in exceptional circumstances only. This includes where a) sub-standard dwellings would be brought in line with the London Plan space standards or b) where de-conversion of flats would create a family size home (3 bed or more) resulting in the net loss of no more than one dwelling of 2 bedrooms or less. Criterion c) relates to the provision of social or physical infrastructure and therefore does not apply in this instance.

The two properties are subdivided into seven spaces, four of which are occupied as flats, one is fitted out but not in use currently, and two spaces are stripped back to a shell, one of which is stated to be formerly used as storage supporting the overall properties. I observed on my site visit that the flats would benefit from some level of refurbishment.

The council has assessed the spaces in line with the London Plan space standards as per the policy requirement and concludes that five of the spaces are compliant with the space standards and the other two spaces could be compliant subject to minor reconfiguration and works. The appellants note that the two basement spaces would have ceiling heights of less than the space standards and that there are other constraints that would appear to make it difficult for them to provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.

However, the appellant’s conclusion that the flats are generally of poor quality does not take into account that many of the deficiencies could be remedied with only relatively minor changes. I see no reason why changes could not be made within the existing respective dwelling areas, such that many of the deficiencies would be resolved. Even if the appellant’s assertion is correct that the 6 existing flats would not be granted planning permission, the evidence before me does not fully substantiate that relatively minor alterations could not achieve a similar number and size of spaces with satisfactory living conditions. Therefore, I am not fully convinced criteria a) of BH10 is met.

Policy BH10 provides for a net loss of dwellings in favour of family housing where the maximum loss is a single 2-bedroom dwelling. There is dispute between the main parties as to whether the appeal properties comprise 6 or 7 dwellings. Whilst only six of the spaces are formally registered as flats, the seventh space could be utilised as such with the appropriate works therefore the properties have the potential for two x 2-bedroom and five x 1-bedroom dwellings. At present only four dwellings are contributing to the local housing market (two x 2-bedroom and two x 1-bedroom flats). However, regardless of whether I take the worst-case scenario of a 5-dwelling net loss or the best-case scenario of a 2-dwelling net loss, this still exceeds the policy requirement of no more than a single dwelling loss.

As such, the proposed development conflicts with Local Plan Policy BH10 which seeks to prevent the loss of housing to serve the borough, the relevant provisions of which I have set out above.

The submitted evidence sets out that there is a significant need for housing overall with a priority need for additional family sized housing of three or more bedrooms which is reflected in Local Plan Policy BH6 requiring 25% of homes to be family sized. This policy approach, having been through independent examination, seems to me to reflect the most conclusive position. The appellants reference a recent [name] advising that during the 2023/24 period only 12.20% of homes completed had three bedrooms or more. A provided recent appeal decision for No. [address], suggests a not dissimilar situation existed in some prior years, suggesting a significant under delivery.

Based upon the submitted evidence, the council is also meeting its overall housing delivery targets with the latest statement identifying a 131% contribution to the annual target and the appellants inform me much of this comprises taller and higher density developments with more limited opportunities for family sized dwellings, which appears to concur with the above mentioned delivery figures. The evidence also suggests there is no significant pressure on smaller dwelling units arising from de-conversion occurrences.

There would be some limited temporary economic benefits during construction. Further to this, additional information may have enabled me to identify limited benefit in relation to biodiversity, attracting limited weight. It also seems possible that further information may have demonstrated compliance with arboricultural policies, including some new planting, which could have attracted limited weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

Reference to an alternative scheme for the site that has been submitted to the council is not determinative in this appeal given I have no details before me and no certainty about its deliverability. Therefore, it attracts limited weight.

My attention has been drawn to a previous appeal relating to [address] where the appeal decision and associated plans have been provided. The main parties disagree regarding the applicability of the [address] decision to the current appeal. There appear to be some similarities however in the absence of the full details which contributed to the decision, it does not provide a precedent, and this current appeal has been considered on its own merits.

The proposed development would result in the net loss of dwellings which would reduce the supply of housing in the borough, specifically smaller units. The scale of small dwelling loss would be clearly detrimental, especially at the worst-case scenario, however, in light of the borough’s current significant exceedance of housing delivery targets, the overall harm to the housing supply would be limited. The provision of two family sized dwellings where there is an evidenced and established need, exacerbated by the under-performance of Policy BH6 to meet the need, is therefore an important material consideration.

Even were I to take a view that based upon the substantive evidence before me, the harm and the conflict in respect of Policy BH10 would be outweighed by the benefits, the proposed development would also be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwellings and the terrace. In combination, the harms from the appeal scheme are such that they outweigh the various benefits set out, so the appeal should not succeed.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the policies of the NPPF, which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.