Raising roof ridge of the side dormer to provide access to the roof level

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 May 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/18/3196054 179 Anson Road, London NW2 4AS  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 Greene against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent.  The application Ref 17/4614, dated 30 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 December 2017.  The development proposed is raising roof ridge of the side dormer to provide access to the roof level. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for raising roof ridge of the side dormer to provide access to the roof level at 179 Anson Road, London NW2 4AS in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/4614, dated 30 October 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Refs Existing_Ground_Floor_Plan_,
 Existing_First_Floor_Plan_, Existing_Roof_Plan_,
 Existing_Section_ AA_,
 Existing_Section_BB_, Existing_Front_Elevation_, Existing_Rear_Elevation_, Existing_Side_01_Elevation, Existing_Side_02_Elevation, Proposed_Ground_Floor_Plan_, Proposed_First_Floor_Plan_, Proposed_Second_Floor_Plan_, Proposed_Roof_Plan_, Proposed_Section_AA_, Proposed_Section_BB_, Proposed_Section_CC_, Proposed_Front_Elevation_, Proposed_Rear_Elevation_, Proposed_Side_01_Elevation_, Proposed_Side_02_Elevation_ and the Ordnance Survey drawing, which shows the site edged red. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling that occupies a prominent position at the junction of Anson Road and Tracey Avenue within a mainly Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/18/3196054 2 residential area, wherein buildings vary in type, scale, design and general appearance. Consequently, there is some variety in the existing built form in both the street scene and the local area to which No 179 belongs. 4. The proposal is to enlarge the existing dormer on the side roof slope of No 179 by raising the height of its dual pitched roof by about 1.2metres. The resultant dormer would be taller and larger than its existing counterpart, which is a noticeable feature of the main building. Even so, the proposal has been carefully designed to reflect the style of the existing dormer. The height and scale of the extended dormer would relate well to the proportions of the host building. The pitched roof form would be maintained with the external materials and pattern of fenestration that would match those of the existing dwelling. To my mind, the proposal would achieve the standard of design sought in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, Altering and Extending Your Home (SPG5) and its Supplementary Planning Document, Residential Extensions and Alterations (SPD2). The intrinsic character of the dwelling would be maintained with no sense of incongruity. 5. The resultant dormer would contrast primarily in scale and shape to the side dormer on the property on the opposite side of the junction to No 179, which is 181 Anson Road. Because the existing side dormers of Nos 179 and 181 face each other across the road and are similar in size and design, they broadly form a mirrored pair in the streetscape. However, the host buildings to which these features relate vary considerably to each other in their form and scale such that a difference in their side dormers would not be unexpected nor draw the eye from the road. Having carefully viewed the site from numerous public vantage points, I have little doubt that Nos 179 and 181 would continue to stand comfortably opposite each other with the new built form in place. The proposal would not, as the Council suggest, disrupt the general balance and symmetry between Nos 179 and 181 nor would it look out of place among the varied built form that characterises the local streetscape. 6. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it complies with Policy DMP1 of Brent Development Management Policies, SPD2 and SPG5. These policies and guidance aim to ensure that new development is well designed, provides high levels of amenity and complements the locality. It is also consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should respond to local character and add to the overall qualities of an area. Conditions 7. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is appropriate to impose a condition to require that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. A condition is also necessary to require matching external materials in the interests of achieving a satisfactory appearance for the finished building. Conclusion 8. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR