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 FreeTechnical 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.