Appeal 6004917

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the local area, with reference to the Cuckoo Estate Conservation Area (the CA).

The appeal dwelling is two storey end of terrace house with a hipped roof. To the front the garden is hard paved for parking and to the rear is a relatively generous rear garden. It is located in a street and wider planned estate made up of similar terraced residential properties at the heart of the CA. The significance of the CA substantially rests in the survival of the entire original layout of the interwar planned estate which retains many of its original features, including its roofline. As such, the appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance as a heritage asset.

The CA is a heritage asset to which I have a statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. I must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The proposal is for ground and first floor rear extensions. The ground floor element is a flat roofed extension that is the full width of the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling, projecting approximately 3.61 metres into the rear garden. Above this the proposed first floor element is approximately half the width of the appeal dwelling and would be positioned to one side so as to continue the existing flank wall, projecting rearward by approximately 3 metres. The roof of the proposed first floor element would be hipped to align with the existing roof, reaching to approximately half its height.

The Cuckoo Estate Conservation Management Plan (2007) (the CECMP) identifies that unsightly and over-scale rear extensions form part of a selection of extensions and alterations that it identifies as a being regarded as detrimental to the historic environment of the estate. Whilst the proposal would reflect the existing materials, and fenestration of the appeal dwelling, the form and additional bulk of the proposed first floor extension would not reflect its design as a single square form terraced house and would interrupt the established roof line of the terrace of which it forms part.

As well as being visible from the rear of the appeal dwelling from other neighbouring properties, the first floor element would be located so that it would be visible in street views looking through the gap between the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring end of terrace house. In these views the proposal would substantially alter the massing and square appearance of the appeal dwelling, a typology that it shares with other houses in the terrace of which it forms part and that is central to the plan, form and development pattern of the estate. For these reasons, the first floor element of the proposal does not accord with the guidance set out for such extensions in the CEMP.

The appellant has drawn my attention to an allowed appeal1 for a proposal for [address] that included, amongst other extensions and alterations, a first floor extension. As the appellant rightly states, the inspector concluded in that instance that the impact of the proposal on the rest of the terrace and its rhythm is less than would be the case here a mid-terraced dwelling. However, less impact does not mean no impact, and I note that the inspector split the decision for that appeal, dismissing the appeal with regard to the first floor extension and only allowing the appeal with regard to other elements of the proposal. I have afforded this previous appeal decision substantial weight in my considerations accordingly.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to approved planning applications that include first floor extensions at [address] and 32 Benham Road2. Both of these include first floor extensions to end of terrace properties that are very similar in position, form, and design as that of the appeal proposal. [name] acknowledge that these planning permissions have now been constructed in accordance with their approvals, the effect of these is now, therefore, very apparent.

The planning approvals in both instances were given slightly over 5 years ago, however planning practice and policy develops over time, including that related to heritage assets. Whilst policy has not significantly developed in this time, from my site visit it is evident that in both instances the first floor extensions result in the same effect on the massing and appearance of their host dwellings and the typology of other houses in their terrace that is central to the plan, form and development pattern of the estate that I have identified above for the appeal proposal. I have given this substantial weight in my considerations.

As such, I have considered the proposal on its own merits, and I find, for the reasons given, that the proposed first floor extension element of the proposal on the appeal dwelling and terrace of which it forms part, would be detrimental to the 1 Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/25/3362426 2 Planning Ref: 210100HH and 190360HH character or appearance of the CA and fails to preserve its significance as a

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal property, the terrace of which it forms part and to significance of the CA. This would not accord with Policies 7C and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2021) and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021). These collectively seek development, including by extension, that is of high design quality, sympathetic to local character, preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas.

The Council has found that the proposal would be contrary to policy D4 of the London Plan (2021). However, as this policy does not relate directly to development proposals, but to the Council’s adoption of design policy and design management, I have not done so.

The proposal would provide some temporary and limited economic benefit from its construction. The proposal also would increase the size of the appeal dwelling and its amenity for occupiers including though the addition of an additional bedroom, which would be of primarily private benefit. I find that when the proposal is considered as a whole, the harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling would be moderate and the harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial. The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the NPPF) requires that great weight should be given to the conservation if heritage assets. In general, planning decisions should be made in the wider public interest. In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the NPPF, I conclude that the harm I have identified outweighs the identified benefits.

The appeal is dismissed.