Appeal 6002935

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension at [site address] , Ealing [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 253593HH, 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 and drawing nos AH 735 01, AH 735 02, AH 735 03 and AH 735 04.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • the adjacent occupiers’ living conditions at [address] (‘No 1’) and at [address] (‘No 5’), with particular regard to outlook.

The host comprises a two storey dwelling, which sits within a terraced row of broadly similar properties, all of which have adjoining, subordinate two storey rear outriggers which are set in from one side boundary. Whilst those outriggers are mostly of the same proportions, in the next terrace at [address] (‘No 17’) the outrigger has been extended further to the rear. I also observed that many of the properties on this side of the road have ground floor rear extensions, and that there are some nearby large rectilinear dormers, particularly on [address] adjacent Appeal Decision: 6002935 to this site. Consequently, the rear elevations of the properties in the area are significantly less cohesive compared to their front faces.

The proposed extension would sit above an existing flat roofed rear projection. The resultant outrigger would therefore be deeper compared to the adjoining outrigger at No 1, and compared to most other outriggers on this side of [address], but it would be set well down from the host’s main ridgeline, and it would respect the original building’s form, shape, roofscape, and materials. Moreover, at about 3 metres deep it would not project a significant distance to the rear.

As a result, the scheme would appear suitably subordinate to the host and it would not adversely impact its character and appearance. [name] understand that the extended outrigger at No 17 was approved prior to the adoption of the Ealing Design Guidance 2022 (‘EDG’), it nevertheless forms part of the established and diverse context to the rear of nearby properties. Thus, having regard to the scheme’s rearward location, where it would be barely visible from public vantage points, it would not be incongruous, and it would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The scheme would not therefore conflict with Policy 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document 2013 (‘EDMP’), or with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (‘LP’). Amongst other things, and in general terms, these require proposals to respond to local distinctiveness and complement the area, by reference to matters including building patterns, scale, materials, appearance, form, proportions and shape.

Neither would it conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) stance that development shall promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, the similar approach in the EDG, or with the requirement for high quality design in Policy DAA of the emerging Regulation 22 Draft Ealing Local Plan (‘DELP’).

The EDG sets out that rear projections should not breach a 45 degree line drawn from the centre of the window of the lowest and closest habitable room on a neighbouring property. In this case, as illustrated by the image at page 8 of Council’s delegated decision report, the proposed extension would breach a 45 degree line drawn from the first floor rear bedroom window at No 1.

However, that window is set in from the common boundary, and the proposed extension would have a fairly low height relative to it, thereby limiting the extension’s bulk viewed from that room. Whilst the extension would be visible offset to the left from No 1’s rear bedroom window, the principal outlook from there down that property’s own rear amenity space and the area beyond would be broadly unaffected.

The outlook from the first floor rear window in the main part of No 5 is already constrained to both sides by the presence of adjacent outriggers, and in the context of this fairly densely developed area where there is typically some degree of enclosure, this modestly scaled extension, which would be set in roughly 2 metres from the common boundary, would not have a significantly impact on the outlook from that room. The first floor rear window in No 5’s outrigger is set well in from the boundary with the appeal site, and the proposed extension would be offset well to the right such that it would not have an overbearing impact. Appeal Decision: 6002935

Finally, having regard to the limited scale of the proposal, its location relative to No 1 and No 5 and to the sun’s trajectory, and the Daylight and [name] by [name], I have no cogent reason to conclude that the scheme would harmfully impact the amount of daylight and sunlight that those neighbouring properties receive.

For these reasons, the scheme would not harmfully impact the living conditions at No 1 or at No 5. Given that EDMP Policy 7.4 addresses local character, it is of limited relevance on this issue. Although the scheme would not fully comply with the advice in the EDG, it would not conflict with that part of LP Policy D3 which requires development proposals to deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity; nor with the broadly similar stance in DELP Policy DAA.

I have considered suggested conditions against the tests in the Framework. As well as the standard time limit, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Finally, in the interests of good design, and to protect the character and appearance of the host property and the area, a condition is necessary requiring that the extension be faced with matching materials, as depicted on the approved plans.

For these reasons, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.