Appeal 3324822

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the submission of the appeal the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) (the Framework). However, in relation to this appeal the aims of both sets of policies are similar. No party would be prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal in light of this change in policy.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the rear roof extension to rear outrigger gable roof on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].

The site is a semi-detached property within a predominantly residential area. The proposed development would extend above the existing outrigger which currently has a pitched roof, the extension would project to the existing rear elevation of the outrigger similar to additions on neighbouring properties.

Windows/door exist in the rear elevation of the upper floor flats at No. [address], which would be in close proximity to the rear roof extension. The appeal site lies to the south of No. 23. Whilst the existing outrigger already restricts outlook and light to a degree, the extension would be substantial and prominent to the occupiers of No. 23 from rooms served by these windows/door, restricting outlook and light further.

The rear roof terrace serving the first floor flat at No. 23, does not benefit from planning permission. Notwithstanding this the Council have confirmed that the structure has been in existence for more than 4 years and as such would be immune from enforcement action, I give this significant weight. The Council have confirm that the first floor flat does not benefit from any other private outdoor space.

I find that the rear roof extension to the existing rear outrigger due to its scale and proximity to No. 23 would result in a dominant built form which would be oppressive and create a sense of enclosure to the occupiers of the neighbouring building.

I conclude that the development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address]. There is conflict Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and Policy 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) which amongst other things, requires developments to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and ensure good levels of daylight and sunlight.

There is conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure developments have high standards of amenity for existing and future users.

The Council have referenced the emerging Ealing Local Plan (Reg 18) Policy DAA in the reason for refusal, policies in the emerging plan could be subject to further modification. [name] note that the policy is similar to that of the adopted development plan, as such the policy attract some weight.

I understand that the appeal site benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Development1 for ‘Rear roof extension to rear outrigger; and installation of one rooflight to front roofslope’. The permitted development comprises a fallback position. Nonetheless whilst the permitted development proposes an extension to the rear outrigger, the scale of the development is less than the proposal before me. Whilst the fallback scheme would affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 23 this would not be to the same extent as the proposed development. I therefore give the fallback position limited weight.

The Appellant has drawn my attention to two developments granted approval for rear extensions. In terms of 24 Chatsworth Gardens2 I note that the relationship between No. 24 and No. 26 is different to the proposal before me. No. 26 has a private rear garden most of which would not be affected by the development and there appears to be a gap between the properties. In the proposal before me No. 23 is split into flats, the first floor flat has limited outdoor amenity space and adjoins the appeal site. I do not find the referenced development comparable to the appeal before me.

With regard to No. 72 Chatsworth Gardens3 whilst plans and the officer report have been provided; without visiting the site I cannot compare the effect of that development on the neighbouring property. Nevertheless, each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.