Planning application · Brent
21/2492.
73 Deanscroft Avenue, London, NW9 8EP
Householder at 73 Deanscroft Avenue, London, NW9 8EP, received 1 Jul 2021 — refused on 6 Sep 2021 (delegated, Sabrina Mohammed).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
6 Sep 2021
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
6
Documents
6 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Brent planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Demolition of existing front and rear extension, proposed single storey front extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension, first floor side extension, hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer window, juliet balcony and 3 front rooflights to dwellinghous.
Reference
21/2492
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW9 8EP
Ward
Council
Received
1 Jul 2021
Validated
12 Jul 2021
Target date
6 Sep 2021
Decision date
6 Sep 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/2492
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW9 8EP
Ward
Council
Received
1 Jul 2021
Validated
12 Jul 2021
Target date
6 Sep 2021
Decision date
6 Sep 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Brent portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 6 Sep 2021, delegated decision by Sabrina Mohammed — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
1 Jul 2021
Application received
12 Jul 2021
Application validated
6 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
6 Sep 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Sabrina Mohammed
1 Jul 2021
Application received
12 Jul 2021
Application validated
6 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
6 Sep 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Sabrina Mohammed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed first floor rear extension by reason of its excessive depth is considered to have a
detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining neighbour at No. 71 Deanscroft Avenue.The
proposal would be contrary to DMP1 of the Development Management Policies 2016, and
Supplementary Planning Document 2 – Residential Extensions and Alterations 2018.
2
The proposed first floor side extension by reason of its roof design and lack of set back from the
front elevation would not appear subservient to the host dwelling and would harm the character
and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. Therefore the proposal is considered to
have a detrimental impact on the character of the host dwelling and street scene. The proposal
would be contrary to DMP1 of the Development Management Policies 2016, Supplementary
Planning Document 2 – Residential Extensions and Alterations 2018
3
The proposed rear dormer and its relationship with the enlarged first floor rear and side extension
would result in a disproportionate addition with excessive bulk at roof level. The proposed
alterations would result in poor that would be harmful to the character of the property. As a result,
the development is considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the house
and the area, contrary to policy DMP1 of the Development Management Policy (2016) and the
Brent’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2 2018.
4
The proposed front extension by reason of its additional forward projection and associated roof
design, results in an incongruous feature that would have a harmful impact on the character of the
property and the wider streetscape, and fails to comply with policy DMP1 of Brent’s Development
Management Policies 2016, and the guidance set out in Brent’s Residential Extensions and
Alterations SPD2 (2018).
DocFDN
Document Imaged Ref: 21/2492 Page 2 of 3
1
The proposed first floor rear extension by reason of its excessive depth is considered to have a
detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining neighbour at No. 71 Deanscroft Avenue.The
proposal would be contrary to DMP1 of the Development Management Policies 2016, and
Supplementary Planning Document 2 – Residential Extensions and Alterations 2018.
2
The proposed first floor side extension by reason of its roof design and lack of set back from the
front elevation would not appear subservient to the host dwelling and would harm the character
and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. Therefore the proposal is considered to
have a detrimental impact on the character of the host dwelling and street scene. The proposal
would be contrary to DMP1 of the Development Management Policies 2016, Supplementary
Planning Document 2 – Residential Extensions and Alterations 2018
3
The proposed rear dormer and its relationship with the enlarged first floor rear and side extension
would result in a disproportionate addition with excessive bulk at roof level. The proposed
alterations would result in poor that would be harmful to the character of the property. As a result,
the development is considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the house
and the area, contrary to policy DMP1 of the Development Management Policy (2016) and the
Brent’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2 2018.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed front extension by reason of its additional forward projection and associated roof
design, results in an incongruous feature that would have a harmful impact on the character of the
property and the wider streetscape, and fails to comply with policy DMP1 of Brent’s Development
Management Policies 2016, and the guidance set out in Brent’s Residential Extensions and
Alterations SPD2 (2018).
DocFDN
Document Imaged Ref: 21/2492 Page 2 of 3
Policies cited
DMP1
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.