Single storey rear extension, double storey side to rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer and 2 no skylights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 April 2018 by Richard S Jones BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/18/3193647 10 Basing Hill, Wembley HA9 9QW  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Patel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent.  The application Ref 17/3740, dated 24 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 October 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension, double storey side to rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer and 2 no skylights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issues are:  whether the proposed development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Barn Hill Conservation Area; and  the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 8 Basing Hill with particular reference to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is situated within the Barn Hill Conservation Area (BHCA), the special character of which is derived from the attractive hillside setting coupled with the architectural quality of the generally mock-Tudor styled houses. 4. The appeal property itself is a two storey semi-detached, inter-war dwelling which is modestly detailed and incorporates a two storey bay with hipped gable, a first floor bay window and a hipped roof. Although designs vary, many of the surrounding dwellings incorporate similar features, thereby creating a recognisable character which positively contributes to the BHCA. 5. The extent of the proposed development would largely consume the existing rear elevation of the dwelling, substantially changing its character and appearance. The modest proportions of the elevation would be dominated by the scale and massing of the extension at first floor level in particular. Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/3193647 2 Moreover, the varying designs of the extensions would create a somewhat disjointed appearance that in overall terms would not positively respond to the existing architectural composition. 6. The appellant contends that the Council commonly accept such first floor rear extensions and my attention has been drawn to the floor plans of three examples. However, I have not been provided with existing and approved elevations for those schemes so I am unable to assess how they relate to the proposal currently before me. Moreover, I note that only one of the examples falls within a Conservation Area and none are identified as falling within the BHCA. Therefore, whilst I accept that the Council allow first floor rear extensions, the evidence presented does not demonstrate circumstances which are directly comparable to this case and to which I should apply significant weight. 7. I note that the Barn Hill Conservation Area Design Guide (BHCADG) states that as a result of the dramatic changes in level throughout the area two storey rear extensions will not normally be permitted. The reason given is because they will have a negative impact on neighbouring residents. However, this particular concern does not form part of the Council’s reasons for refusal. Nevertheless, the BHCADG does highlight that most houses within Barn Hill are relatively modest in size, meaning that in most cases, nothing other than a small extension will be acceptable. The BHCADG also states that extensions should not dominate the existing building, as I have found in this case. 8. Whilst I have been referred to a first floor extension at No 19 Basing Hill, I note that it was existing prior to making planning application reference 16/4461. I do not therefore know when this extension was approved or indeed its planning status, and whether it precedes the BHCADG. If so, this would represent a material change in circumstances. In the absence of such clarification, I am unable to apply material weight to the extension as a precedent to that currently before me. 9. Although the gap between the appeal dwelling and No 8 Basing Hill would narrow slightly to the rear, I do not consider in overall terms that this would undermine the objective to preserve the important separation and views between houses. 10. The BHCADG states that rear extensions should be no wider than the original house and will not normally be permitted where they are behind a side extension. It states that this will only be permitted where the depth of this part of the rear extension is reduced by a minimum of 1m and set in from the side boundary by a minimum of 1m. The appeal proposal does not meet these expectations. However, the appellant has drawn my attention to an approval at No 7 Basing Hill, which appears to largely replicate the stepped arrangement proposed. 11. Moreover, although I share the Council’s concerns regarding the design of the proposed rear dormer, the appellant has drawn my attention to an approval for a very similar, if not identical, rear dormer at No 19 Basing Hill, located a short distance from the appeal site and within the BHCA. Both this approval and that at No 7 postdate the BHCADG and therefore on this basis it would not be reasonable to withhold planning permission for these aspects alone. Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/3193647 3 12. Nevertheless, I conclude that in overall terms, the development would fail to preserve or enhance either the character or appearance of the BHCA, the desirability of which is fully anticipated by section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and by Policies DMP1 and DMP7 of the London Borough of Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies (LP) and the BHCADG. Whilst the magnitude of harm identified in respect of the conservation area as a whole may be considered less than substantial in the context of paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the arguments advanced in favour of allowing the appeal do not amount to benefits that would outweigh the great weight I must attach to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Living conditions 13. I note that the appellant is not seeking to appeal against the refusal of the patio and intends to deal with this as a separate planning application if this appeal is allowed in whole or in part. However, this aspect remains part of the proposal that is currently before and which I have been appointed to determine. Moreover, because of the change in levels between the rear of the dwelling and the garden, it is not readily severable to allow a split decision to be made. 14. Due to the topography of the area, the existing floor level of the appeal dwelling is set materially higher than that of No 8. The appeal proposal would continue the floor level of the extended dwelling out onto a raised patio area which would run to nearly the full width of the property in close proximity to the boundary with No 8. Whilst there is a line of conifers on this boundary which offers some screening, there is a gap which allows views onto the patio area and into the rear of this neighbouring dwelling. The raised patio would be positioned close to this gap and would result in a significant increase in overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of No 8. The situation is compounded by the position of the proposed steps, which would focus activity close to the boundary with No 8 and would compromise any opportunity to provide effective screening in this location. 15. I therefore conclude that this aspect of the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, contrary to LP Policy DMP1 and to the BHCADG. These seek, amongst other matters and in addition to the above, to protect neighbouring residential amenity. Conclusion 16. For the reasons explained, and taking all other matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Richard S Jones INSPECTOR