Roof and rear extensions at 38 And 40 Golders Manor Drive, London NW11

What was proposed

The application sought roof alterations, rear dormers, rooflights, a gable window, first-floor rear extensions and new porches to both properties.

“Roof extension including hip to gable, 2no. rear dormer windows, 2no. rooflights to front roofslope and 1no. gable window, first floor rear extension and new front porch to both properties.”

“A joint ground floor rear extension to both properties has been previously approved and implemented (ref. 22/1981/FUL). The lofts of both properties were also previously approved for hip-to-gable extensions and rear dormers under application 24/2015/FUL. The current proposal seeks to modify and enlarge that previously consented scheme.”

Officer report

The site

The site comprises two adjoining two-storey semi-detached homes in a mainly residential area; one is divided into two flats and the other remains a family home.

“The application relates to two adjoining two-storey semi-detached properties located at 38 and 40 Golders Manor Drive, NW11. No. 38 has been subdivided into two residential flats, while No. 40 remains a single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is residential in character, comprising of predominantly semi-detached properties. The site is not located within a conservation area and is not subject to any other relevant restrictions.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier decisions approved rear extensions, roof works and a porch, while another outbuilding application was refused.

“Reference: 24/2015/FUL Address: Golders Manor Drive, London, NW11 9HT Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: July 2024 Description: New front porch to No. Roof extension involving hip to gable and rear dormer window and 2no. front facing rooflights to both No. 38 and 40 and 2no. front facing rooflights to No. 38 (AMENDED DESCRIPTION)”

“Reference: 22/1538/192 Address: Golders Manor Drive, London, NW11 9HT Decision: Lawful Decision Date: April 2022 Description: Alterations and extensions to the roof including the creation of a hip to gable and rear dormer together with the insertion of 2no. front roof lights to facilitate a loft conversion. Erection of a new front porch…”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended refusal because the development would be a dominant, bulky and uncharacteristic addition that harmed the buildings and wider locality.

“AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the…”

“The proposed development, by reason of the cumulative bulk, scale, and design of the first floor rear extensions and roof alterations, including hip-to-gable conversions and dormers, would result in a dominant, incongruous, and uncharacteristic form of development that fails to appear subordinate to the host buildings.”

Officer report

Design and neighbouring homes

The combined roof and first-floor additions were considered disproportionate, but officers found no significant effect on neighbouring residents’ amenities.

“It is considered that the hip-to-gable alterations to both roofs, when combined with the mansard-style roof to the rear extensions, eliminate the dual-hipped roof form characteristic of the pair. This change results in a much bulkier, box-like roof form that visually overwhelms the properties. The height of the existing rear outriggers is to be extended to become part of the extended rear roof.”

“In combination with the already substantial roof additions, the cumulative bulk of the first- floor and roof extensions would appear disproportionate additions to the host dwelling which are not sympathetic to the original house and are in fact dominant and unduly bulky.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Consultation letters were sent to nine neighbouring properties and no comments were received.

“Consultation letters were sent to 9 neighbouring properties. No comments received.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

The planning officer presented the application, and the agent spoke in support.

Committee discussion

Members asked questions of the speakers and officers before discussing the officer recommendation.

“The Committee then had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers.”

“Following discussion, the Committee moved to a vote on Officer’s recommendations.”

Minutes

The vote

Four members voted for refusal, one voted against refusal and none abstained.

“For – (refusal) 4 Against – (refusal) 1 Abstention – (refusal) 0”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the proposed development would not have an acceptable effect on the site’s character and the locality.

“Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that the proposed development would NOT have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the application site and the locality. This application is therefore recommended for REFUSAL.”

Officer report