Appeal 3311318

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace, 2-storey house with accommodation within the roof and a 3-storey outrigger to the rear. Neighbouring properties in the terrace have small rear gardens and some include modest single-storey rear extensions. The appeal property benefits from a larger garden than its neighbours as extra land has been acquired to the rear and to the rear of the next door property.

There is an extant planning permission granted in 2021 for a single-storey wrap-around rear addition1 which would occupy a large part of the rear garden but would be compatible with the scale of nearby rear additions. I recognise there is a high likelihood that this scheme would be carried out if this appeal is dismissed and therefore view it as a credible fall-back position to which I attach significant weight. I note that a Lawful Development Certificate has been gained for a single-storey addition to the rear of the outrigger2. As this addition would be smaller than the extant planning permission scheme, and the appellant’s clear aim is to maximise internal floor space, I consider it to be an unlikely fall-back scenario and therefore attribute limited weight to it. 1 Application reference 214295HH 2 Application reference 215791CPL

The proposal would comprise the erection of a single-storey wrap-around rear extension with a pitched roof. This would be similar to the 2021 permission in respect of its height and appearance. However, it would have a far larger footprint than the 2021 scheme, it would occupy almost the entirety of the original garden area, and the rear elevation would almost align with the rear garden boundaries of the properties to either side. Due to its substantial footprint and significant rear protrusion, the proposal would be an incongruous and overly prominent form of development that would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the terrace.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It therefore fails to comply with Policies 7.4, 7B and 7D of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) which, amongst other matters, require good design which pays regard to local character and complements the scale of development in the area. There is also conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 4 - [name], which states that rear extensions should be subordinate to the original dwelling, and the design aims of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.