Appeal 6002489

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a second-floor rear extension above the existing two-storey rear outrigger, incorporating a pitched roof with traditional detailing, together with the dormer extension over the main roof plane and four roof lights over the extension at [site address] , Ealing [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 253402HH, 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: site location plan at scale 1:1250; and drawing no’s 22- 112.3 (proposed second floor plans); 22-151.5 (site location plan: roof plan); and 22-151.4 (existing and proposed elevations).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building, unless otherwise specified on page 14 of the Design and [name] prepared by [name], dated 8/9/25.

The description of development referred to above in both the banner heading and the decision has been taken from the application form, as I have not been made aware of any agreement for it to be changed.

The Council has referred to the emerging Draft Ealing Local Plan Regulation 22, 2025 (DELP). However, it has not identified any conflict with policies contained within the DELP, the appeal has been determined on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the Ealing Green Conservation Area (the CA).

The host property is a three-storey detached dwelling that faces onto, but has a generous setback from [address], and sits amongst similar properties immediately nearby on this side of the road. These properties have steep roof pitches along with gables and dormer extensions at three-storey level on their front sides. To their rear sides there is mature planting within many of their rear gardens, with most properties having a matching three storey projecting rear wing on their right side (when looking from the rear side), with a lower two storey projecting wing on the opposite side. Although neighbouring property, no. 29, has its three and two storey wings arranged to the opposite sides. Moreover, no. 28 is a much different and taller building and includes rear gables at a higher level and does not have the same unifying architectural detailing as the host property. Beyond the appeal property’s long rear garden is a modern building, which is significantly taller than the appeal property and faces onto [address].

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires when determining proposals in conservation areas that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. At paragraph 210, the Framework sets out matters which should be considered, including sustaining, and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The Ealing Green Conservation Area [name], dated March 2008 (CACA) states the CA has a variety of uses and architectural heritage with buildings dating from the 18th century. The appeal site is within its Sub Area 2 – [address], recognised as an enclave of residential properties, mainly being three and four storeys high, in a formal arrangement with a coherent architectural language, said to be the result of a planned residential exercise. Most are said to have generous setbacks from the pavement and be within substantial plots. The appearance of these residential properties (including the appeal site), when looking in both directions along [address] contribute positively to the significance of the CA.

It is also noted that the CACA identifies properties to one side of the appeal property (nearest to [address]) as being locally listed, but the appeal property itself is not identified as being locally listed.

The Ealing Green Conservation Area Management Plan, dated March 2008 (MP), seeks to avoid poorly designed alterations and extensions to properties within the CA, its main objective being to preserve and enhance the CA. It also says that extensions need to be carefully considered, although it adds that inset dormer windows will usually be accepted on rear roof slopes.

The proposed new second storey part would be located to the rear of the appeal property, and due to the close arrangement of neighbouring properties it would not be readily visible from [address]. It would respect the architectural detailing of the host property, including its steep pitched roof ensuring a sympathetic appearance, but due to it being set well below the main roof ridge, it would also be seen as a subordinate addition. Furthermore, it would be lower than the opposing three storey projecting part, also ensuring that the higher existing part would be retained as the dominant feature. Furthermore, it would sit alongside both the host property’s existing three storey wing, and no.29’s three storey wing, which would make it appear entirely appropriate on the host property and not out of character with it, or to unacceptably harm the rhythm of the nearby properties on this side of [address].

The proposed new dormer roof extension would be inset between the proposed raised part of the rear projection and the existing three storey part. It would also sit low on the roof slope, which along with its simple design, modest size and scale, would ensure it harmonised with the host property and was not a dominant or harmful addition. Notwithstanding that dormer roof extensions are not common features on the rear sides of other properties in the immediate area, they are visible on the front sides of these properties, and their appearance is a strong and positive contributor to this part of the CA. As a result, replicating this design feature to the rear side of the appeal site would not in this case, harm the appearance of the host property or its visual relationship with neighbouring properties.

The proposed development given its location to the rear side of the appeal property would ensure that the significance of the appeal property’s front elevation and its positive contribution to the CA is preserved. The rear side of the appeal property is not recognised as making a positive contribution to the CA, and given the existing variety of built forms and planting, I am persuaded that the appearance of the proposed development would not have a harmful effect upon the CA. Furthermore, whilst there may be limited views of the rear of the appeal property alongside other properties with a similar appearance, such views would likely be from private points and include part of the rear sides of no’s 28 and 29, and would not in any event harm the significance of the CA.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, consistent with the duty in the Act, and for the same reasons comply with the relevant parts of policies D3 and HC1 of The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name], dated March 2021 (LP) and policies 7B, 7C and 7.4 of Ealing’s Development Management, Development Plan Document, adopted December 2013, that amongst other things, collectively require development to be high quality, to positively respond to local distinctiveness, including through its scale, appearance and relationship to building patterns, and to conserve the significance of heritage assets. In addition, I find the proposed development to be consistent with the requirements of the CACA and MP as set out above.

The Council referred to conflict with LP Policy D4. That policy is concerned with strategic design review and analysis; I did not find it to be directly determinative on this main issue.

The Council in its appeal documentation said the proposed development would affect the setting of no. [address] (a grade ii listed building). That property is on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site, and nearer to the junction with [address]. Given that the proposed development would be wholly to the rear of the appeal property, along with the separation between them, and that no.86 and the proposed development would not be seen together, I find that there would be a neutral effect on its setting in this case.

A standard implementation condition (1) has been imposed, along with a condition (2) listing the approved plans to provide certainty over what has been approved. In order to ensure the appearance of the proposed development harmonises with the host property, a condition (3) is necessary.

The proposed development accords with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.