Appeal 3341427

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Single storey side/rear infill extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 240188HH dated 16 January 2024 and the drawings submitted with it subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 21_073_P1; 21_073_P2; 21_073_P3.

Materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall match those found in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and1 the Brunswick Conservation Area.

The appeal site (No.51) is a two storey semi-detached house within a group of very similar mid twentieth-century properties located on a corner plot within the Brunswick Conservation Area (BCA) and is one of the ‘Lynwood style’ dwellings which are ‘chalet style’ with paired asymmetric gables and hipped roofs. A feature of these houses in their original form is their detailed joinery such as porches and expressive fenestration featuring round and canted oriel windows in particular.

The Council have previously approved a hip-to-gable and two-storey side extension2 which has been implemented and significantly changed the contribution made by the previously unaltered dwelling to the character and appearance of the BCA; notably the loss of hipped roof in a prominent corner location along with the difference of roof pitch between that in the extension 1 Having regard to the duties set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 2 225413HH dated 24.03.2023 and that on the main roof which tends to emphasise the change that has taken place. These works appeared to be substantially complete at the time of my site visit and it is in those circumstances of significant change that I consider the impact of what is proposed.

The Council refer to their refusal of an earlier application3 for a single storey wrap round extension with which their decision is consistent. They also suggest that the proposal should be refused as amounting to overdevelopment of the site. What is proposed, in that it does not present a single full-width addition but a stepped, set-down lean-to, minimises the increase in the extent of flank wall which is presented to the street and differs significantly from the previously refused full width rear extension such that the result would not appear cramped or, in the broad streetscene, add discernibly to that which is already permitted.

Given the extent of change which the Council has already permitted, my observations direct that what is here appealed would generate no significant planning harm and would not conflict with Policy 7.4, 7B or 7C(B) of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013). These seek that planning decisions should complement scale pattern, materials and detailing, retain design amenity and preserve and enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. I therefore conclude the appeal succeeds subject to the usual plans and timing conditions. A further condition to ensure consistency in use of construction materials is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area.