Extensions to create a new WC and entrance lobby and garden room at ground floor level; and a third bedroom at first floor level

📊

See the success rate & inspector analytics

Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.

Sign Up Free

Technical Issues Heatmap

Extensions
Character & Appearance

Inspector’s Reasoning

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 June 2018 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/18/3201649 36 Park Side, London, NW2 6RJ  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 B McGowan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent.  The application Ref 17/5241, dated 8 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 February 2018.  The development proposed is extensions to create a new WC and entrance lobby and garden room at ground floor level; and a third bedroom at first floor level. Costs 1. An application for costs was made by Mr B McGowan against the Council of the London Borough of Brent. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extensions to create a new WC and entrance lobby and garden room at ground floor level; and a third bedroom at first floor level at 36 Park Side, London, NW2 6RJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/5241, dated 8 December 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule. Procedural Matter 3. The Council states that the proposed front extension would not have an adverse impact upon local character and consequently and that the proposed single storey rear extension is deemed to be acceptable. Consequently, the main focus of this appeal is the two storey element of side extension. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling located at the corner of Gladstone Park Gardens where it meets Park Side. The dwelling has gardens to the front and rear, and to the side facing Gladstone Park Gardens. There is a narrow gap to No 34 Park Side. Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/18/3201649 2 6. The appeal property is located in a largely residential area characterised by the presence of detached and semi detached two storey dwellings. Houses tend to be set back from the road behind parking areas and/or gardens. This characteristic combines with the presence of a large park on the opposite side of Park Side, to provide for a spacious character. 7. During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings in the area have been extended and/or altered. The type and form of the changes is varied. Immediately adjacent to the appeal property, No 34 has been extended at roof level with a very large box dormer, extending to ridge height and similarly, on the opposite side of Gladstone Park Gardens to the appeal property, No 38 Park Side has a dominant flat-roofed extension at second storey level. Other prominent second storey dormers are present and I also observed white rendering to comprise a common feature on buildings within the vicinity. 8. The proposed side extension would be located to the rear of the appeal property. It has been carefully designed, such that it would integrate with the host property’s roof – reaching slightly above the eaves – in a manner that would appear architecturally striking without appearing unduly obtrusive or dominant. Rather, the first storey element of the proposal would appear as a visually interesting addition in harmony with its host, effectively “slotting into” position above a ground floor addition found by the Council to be appropriate. 9. Further to the above, I find that the proposal would serve to blend the host property in with its surroundings. At present, the rear of No 34 Park Side, with its prominent dormer and white rendering below, appears visually dominant. The choice of materials associated with the proposal, combined with the flat roof elements of the two storey extension, would, to some degree serve to match and soften the impact of the appearance of No 34. 10.I note that the Council, in its officer’s report, appears to be concerned that the proposal does not slavishly adhere to its Supplementary Planning Document 2: Residential Extensions and Alterations (2018) (SPD2). However, SPD2 simply sets out guidance and it is important that each development is assessed upon its own merits and that local context is taken into account. Furthermore, I am mindful that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires planning decisions to ensure that developments respond to local character, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. In this case, I find that the proposal responds to local context through appropriate innovation, resulting in a design that would enhance local character. 11.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would not be contrary to the the Framework, to Development Management Policies (2016) Policy DMP1 or to the Council’s SPD2, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/18/3201649 3 Conditions 12.I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council against the six tests set out in paragraph 206 of the Framework. A condition relating to the relevant plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. 13.A condition controlling materials is necessary to protect local character. Conclusion 14.For the reasons given above, the appeal succeeds. N McGurk INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions attached to Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/18/3201649 36 Park Side, London, NW2 6RJ 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: 4127/BB/500-A; 4127/BB/501. 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the building shall match those used in the existing building. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert Representation

Don't leave your appeal to chance.

Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.

Get Free Review How it works →