Described on the planning application form as ‘A loft conversion featuring a curved roof. The proposed will also involve the provision of a roof terrace to the rear of the property, which will be completely enclosed by 1.7m height glazing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 October 2018 by E Symmons BSc (Hons) MSc MArborA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/18/3207949 19 Woodhill Crescent, Harrow HA3 0LU.  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 Mrs S Attia against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent.  The application ref 18/0930, dated 8 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2018.  The development proposed is described on the planning application form as ‘A loft conversion featuring a curved roof. The proposed will also involve the provision of a roof terrace to the rear of the property, which will be completely enclosed by 1.7m height glazing’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The appellant considers the description of the proposal in the Council’s officer report to be misleading as the word ‘conversion’ has been replaced by ‘extension’. As I have no written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed, I have used the one given on the original planning application form. 3. I accept that the rooftop extension currently comprises a habitable room. Furthermore I acknowledge that the current roof terrace is a ‘lawful roof terrace’. 4. The appellant states that the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD2 (SPD) should be dated 2017 and not 2018. However, from information submitted by the Council I have confirmed the adoption date as 2018. Main Issue 5. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property, the street scene and the locality. Reasons 6. This white rendered detached property is a two-storey flat-roofed building with a two-storey side and small rooftop extension. There is a large front bay window feature extending the full height of the front elevation which adds to the property’s character. There is a variety of single and two-storey properties in the street, some detached and others semi-detached. The appeal property is Appeal Decision APP/ T5150/D/18/3207949 2 not characteristic of other houses in the street which mainly have pitched roofs. Due to its design, the appeal property forms a prominent ‘feature building’ within the street. There is no evidence before me to suggest the property has been converted from a pitched roof. Furthermore, during my site visit I saw both 54 and 56 Ebrington Road which had a similar design. 7. Submitted drawing ST_NOV17_19WOODHILL_02 Rev A shows sight lines from both sides of the pavement directly in front of the bay window element of the property. From both the submitted drawing, and from observations made when on site, it is accepted that whilst elements of the proposed extension would be visible from both sides of the pavement, the extension would not be visible in its entirety. The drawing however, does not demonstrate sight lines at the flush front wall elevation of the appeal property where views would be greater. 8. It is accepted that views from the pavement directly in front of the property would be less than those in the middle distance. However, I must consider all views, including those from other properties. From my site visit I could see that 15 and 17 Woodhill Crescent, and the seasonal screening afforded by the street trees, would partially shield views of the proposed extension from the west. However, the proposal would still be visible from many viewpoints, including the bungalows directly to the east. 9. The proposed roof extension would more than double the floor space of the current extension. It would appear as another storey added to the property which, due to the increased height and mass, would be out of scale with and dominate other properties in the street. Although the roof would have a similar eaves height to the existing extension, the overall height would increase due to the proposed domed roof. 10. The proposed dome, particularly when combined with a green roof, would make the roof appear less obtrusive than that of a pitched roof. However, this design element would not be sufficient to mitigate the increased height and mass of the whole structure. The extension would not appear subservient to the host property. As such, it would create an incongruous feature which would cause material harm to the character and appearance of both the appeal property and the wider area. 11. The appellant contends that the existing extension appears as ‘an afterthought’ and that the proposal would improve the current situation. I accept that the existing extension is visible within the wider street scene. However, a larger structure, despite having a potentially more sympathetic design, would nevertheless have a greater visual impact than the existing extension. 12. There is some disagreement between the Council and the appellant as to whether the prominence of the front glazed aspect of the proposed extension would be lesser or greater than the existing fully glazed extension when seen at night when room lights were on. Irrespective of the degree of illumination, the proposed extension would have high visibility at night due to the width of the front elevation width and the increased height. There is no substantive evidence before me to confirm any reduction in the levels of light pollution which would support Policy DMP1 of the London Borough of Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies 2016 (the Local Plan). Accordingly, this matter has been afforded limited weight in my decision making. Appeal Decision APP/ T5150/D/18/3207949 3 13. The roof extension would incorporate a terrace situated on the existing two- storey side extension behind the existing pitched roof garage. The terrace would not be seen from the east or west, due to the current or proposed extension and other properties respectively. It would however be visible from the front at street level due to the gap between the appeal property and No 17. It would also be seen from other properties the immediate locality at first floor level and would appear as an incongruous feature. The Council do not consider that the terrace would affect the living conditions of neighbours. However it would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. 14. I therefore find that due to the height, scale and mass of the proposed extension significant material harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the property, the street scene and the locality. This would be contrary to Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016 (London Plan), Policy CP17 of the Brent Core Strategy 2010 (Core Strategy), Policy DMP1 of the Local Plan and guidance contained within the SPD. When taken together these policies and guidance seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development complements and protects the existing character of the locality. Other Matters 15. The appellant raises the issue that the Council’s officer report does not discuss conflict with policies 7.6 of the London Plan, CP17 of the Core Strategy or with the SPD, and it follows that it would therefore comply with the London Plan. Although not mentioned explicitly in the text, these policies are cited as considerations at the start of the officer report, the report itself makes reference to the issues covered by the policies and they are quoted on the Decision Notice. As such, I consider them to be of relevance. In any case, I consider that the development is contrary to Policies 7.4 of the London Plan and DMP1 of the Local Plan which is decisive. 16. The appellant has also stated that the proposed extension would provide a more sustainable structure due to the biodiversity gain of the green roof, which would support Policy DMP1 of the Local Plan, and would improve insulation levels. No details have been provided regarding these matters. However there are no reasons before me which would lead me to doubt that this would be the case. Nevertheless none of these matters, either taken cumulatively or individually, would outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the host property and wider area. 17. The appellant raises concern that the Council refers to both the appeal property and the proposed extension design as ‘unconventional’. I consider that a more contemporary or unconventional design per se may be acceptable in this location. However it is the harm of the increase in mass and height that leads me to my decision. Conclusion 18. For the reasons detailed above, and having due regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal. E Symmons INSPECTOR