Single storey rear conservatory and installation of a 1.8m high boundary fence to dwelling house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 April 2019 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/19/3221180 64 Brampton Grove, Wembley, HA9 9QU • 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 Aliaa al-Temimi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent. • The application Ref 18/3424, dated 1 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 November 2019. • The development proposed is a single storey rear conservatory and installation of a 1.8m high boundary fence to dwelling house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at no 62 Brampton Grove and on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the Barn Hill Conservation Area (CA). 3. No 64 has an approved full width rear and side, single storey extension with a flat roof and extensive glazing across the rear elevation. A previously erected conservatory and raised patio sited to the rear of the existing extension was the subject of an enforcement notice. Planning permission was refused and the notice upheld on appeal (APP/T5150/C/17/3170592) on the grounds of harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at no 62 in terms of privacy as a result of the patio and outlook as a result of the conservatory. Those works have since been demolished. 4. The plans show that the proposed development at 2m in depth is some 0.7m shorter than the previous conservatory. The appellant says that it also differs in that it has a lowered height (2.9m according to the plans) and is set in from the boundary although the plans show that the set in is marginal. Although not shown on the plans, the proposal would have to also include the raising of the patio area. Whilst the appellant maintains that the boundary fence does not need planning permission, it forms part of the proposal before me and I have determined the proposal on this basis. 5. The adjoining property at no 62 has also been extended across the full width of the rear elevation and has a bay window serving a habitable room very close to the side boundary. The extension is broadly in line with the existing extension at no 64. It has steps down to a rear patio area which is sited at a significantly lower level than the proposed conservatory would be. Whilst the orientation of Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/19/3221180 2 the proposal to the north-east of no 62 and the use of a translucent panel on the side elevation would sufficiently mitigate the impact in terms of light and the flat roof of the proposal would be lower than that of the existing extension, the difference in levels would result in the proposed conservatory and boundary fence looming over the neighbouring garden. This would be unduly overbearing and would create an oppressive sense of enclosure, resulting in an unacceptable outlook from that property. This would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and would be contrary to development plan policy DMP1 in the London Borough of Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) (2016) which is relevant because it seeks to ensure that development provides high levels of amenity. 6. The appeal property was built in the inter-war period and lies within the Barn Hill CA. The spacious, leafy surroundings and traditional front elevations of the dwellings contribute positively to, and form the defining characteristics of, the CA. However, the rear elevation of this and the neighbouring dwelling have already been altered with modern extensions. The approved extension at the appeal property has a contemporary, flat roof form and design. The proposed conservatory would also have a contemporary design and this would complement the appearance of the rear elevation. The more traditional front elevation and sense of space around the dwelling would not be compromised. As such, the proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the CA and would accord with development plan policies DMP1 and DMP7 of the DPD in this respect. 7. Notwithstanding my findings in regard to character and appearance, I conclude that my findings in regard to living conditions are significant and overriding and the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that justify determining the appeal otherwise and the appeal should be dismissed. Sarah Colebourne Inspector