Appeal 6002932

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a ground floor rear extension together with internal alterations and external patio at [site address] , Ealing [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 253376HH, 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: drawing no’s 2025 061 01 G; and 2025 061 02 G.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be those specified on the application form and where stated they shall match those used on the existing building.

Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence in relation to the development hereby approved until an [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Arboricultural Method Statement shall include details of the new patio and boundary wall (between no’s 13 and 14) including works within the root protection area of the adjoining maple tree; along with details of measures to protect trees at and adjoining the appeal site during construction works. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved [name].

The Council has referred to the emerging Draft Ealing Local Plan 2025 (DELP), said to be at Regulation 22 stage. I have limited information regarding the DELP, including whether there are any unresolved objections relating to relevant policies. In view of this, and with it not being the adopted development plan, I attach limited weight to it in my decision.

The appellant submitted within their grounds of appeal additional information from Trevor Heaps Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd, dated 18 December 2025, in respect of reason for refusal no.2. As this appeal follows the householder appeal route, the Council has not had the opportunity to comment on this information. There could be unfairness arising as a result, so this information has not been accepted, and 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 Mount Park Conservation Area (the CA).

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 Mount Park Conservation Area [name], dated April 2009 (MPCACA) says the CA mainly contains residential properties that are detached or semi-detached, with generous proportions and within large plots, along with a variety of construction materials. The appeal site falls within the Mount Park Road and Mount Park Crescent sub-area, the photographs and descriptions of the significance of this part of the CA mainly relate to architectural features on the front of properties in this area. The MPCACA adds more generally that mature trees and green hedges complement the architecture and frame views within the CA. It identifies poorly designed development, including extensions that are disrupting the traditional spatial relationship between buildings, as threats to the CA.

The Mount Park Conservation Area Management Plan, dated April 2009 (MP) also identifies poor quality extensions and alterations as threats to the CA. It says as a guide, a depth of 3 metres for rear extensions is acceptable but they should not be across the entire rear side of properties, although it adds that flat roofed extensions are sometimes appropriate, but they should be finished with parapets.

Ealing’s Draft Generic Management Plan, Public & [name], dated February 2022 (DGMP) states rear extensions should be subordinate to the original dwelling with a maximum depth of 4 metres in the case of a detached house (if not extended already to the rear side), and should not extend across the full width of the original dwelling. As the DGMP is a consultation draft and not adopted, I attach limited weight to it.

The appeal site contains a two-storey detached dwelling (with a three storey part on its rear side), there are similar such detached properties on this same side of the road, and due to their alignment, one neighbouring property, no.12, is positioned further forward than the appeal site, and to the other side, no.14 is setback further than it. On the rear sides of these properties, there is a variety of different extensions and alterations at single storey level, along with planting within their rear gardens, some of which is mature. These properties also have grander front elevations than their rear sides, and their collective appearance on the front sides contributes positively to the CA, with their rear sides being less significant.

The host property has had a later conservatory addition to part of its rear side, inset behind the projecting rear part, and the evidence submitted by the appellant shows that this was in existence in 1947, which the Council has not disputed. The proposed extension would extend across the entire rear elevation and by a small part to one of its sides. It would also project beyond the rear elevation, as it was in 1947, by some 4 metres or so, and have a parapet wall above its flat roof, it is also proposed to be constructed in matching brick to the host property.

The appellant’s submission contained details of a number of single storey rear extensions to properties on this same side of the road, which include flat roof extensions, some of which extend across the full rear elevation, and incorporate large areas of glazing.

In view of those nearby extensions, together with the modest 4 metre additional depth beyond what existed in 1947, and its matching materials and limited height, it would relate sympathetically to the character and appearance of the host property and ensure it would be subordinate to it. Its large areas of glazing at ground floor level would be seen differently from its higher-level openings, which would not harmfully contrast with them, as the extension would be read as a modern later addition. Similarly, the proposed raised patio, given its modest size and position, would not be harmful to the CA.

The proposed extension would not be readily visible from the front elevation ensuring the significance of the buildings along Mount Park Crescent would be preserved. In addition, to its rear side, the interspersed planting within the appeal site and nearby gardens would reduce views of it, and its modest scale and simple design would ensure it satisfactorily assimilated into the CA.

Regarding the effect on trees, I observed that the collective value of the trees in these nearby rear gardens provides a verdant appearance, which positively contributes to the significance of the CA. The majority of trees within and adjoining the appeal site are to be retained, although three no. trees (a wisteria, a cherry plum and an apple tree) are proposed to be removed, which are classified as grade C trees. No objections have been raised regarding their removal, and I see no reason to disagree in view of their quality, species and size, and due to the presence of other trees in the immediate area.

One tree, T22 as shown on the appellant’s arboricultural information (that accompanied the planning application) is classified as a grade C tree, it is in the rear garden of no.14 and is shown to have part of its root protection area affected by the proposed patio. The appellant has said the patio could affect some 16% or so of its root protection area, but as the patio would be built upwards from the ground level, along with the existing boundary wall being extended upwards, ground disturbance works would likely have limited impact upon its root systems. In view of the above, and subject to a suitable condition, regarding a method statement for works within its root protection area, I am content in this case, any harm to T22 could be adequately mitigated, and there would be no harm to the CA in respect of the effect of the proposed development on trees.

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 G7 and HC1 of The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name], dated March 2021 (LP) and policies 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 that positively responds to local distinctiveness, including through its scale, appearance and relationship to building patterns, conserve the significance of heritage assets, and for trees of value to be retained. The proposed development would also accord with DELP Policy DAA insofar as it requires high quality design. Although there would be some minor conflict with the DGMP and MP in terms of the depth and width of the proposed extension, it would be consistent with their collective objectives and those of the MPCACA, that seek to ensure well-designed development that preserves the CA.

The Council referred to conflict with LP policies D1 and D4. Insufficient information was submitted regarding Policy D1 that would allow any firm conclusions to be made against it on this main issue. I also found that Policy D4 is mainly concerned with strategic design review and analysis and was not directly determinative.

References were made to other planning permissions nearby for single storey extensions. I carefully considered them, but given my findings above, it was not necessary for me to compare them to the appeal proposal in my decision.

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. A condition (3) is also necessary to ensure the external materials harmonise with the character and appearance of the property and the CA. No external materials are specified on the approved drawings, so the condition did not need to refer to them.

A condition is necessary in respect of a method statement to protect those trees to be retained during construction works, and for precise details of the patio foundations and altered boundary wall to be agreed in respect of T22, as the submitted information did not adequately provide this information. However, I did not find it necessary to impose a condition with respect of the removal of any other trees shown to be retained, as a separate notification for works to most trees in the CA would be required in any case. Nor was I persuaded it was reasonable or necessary to impose a condition regarding a tree monitoring report, as any works would likely have been agreed in advance through the method statement, and any ensuing compliance matters would, be a separate matter for the Council.

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. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR