Appeal 6006196

The appeal is dismissed.

The above description of development is taken from the application form. The Council has used different wording on its decision notice but there is no evidence that this was formally agreed. The description of development used by the appellant is sufficiently accurate to describe the proposal.

The Council has commented that the submitted plans show an unauthorised roof height and design at [address] (No 22), and that there are current enforcement proceedings in progress. However, it is not the role of a Section 78 appeal to address matters of enforcement. Furthermore, the planning application has been validated by the Council, and I am satisfied that the plans submitted provide the information necessary to make an informed decision. Regardless of what has been constructed to date, and mindful of the site’s extensive planning history, I have determined the appeal based on the plans before me.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight, and privacy.

The appeal site is located within a predominantly residential area characterised by semi-detached and terraced dwellings. Whilst not within a designated conservation area, the context includes attractive, red brick and rendered buildings in the arts and crafts garden city suburb style.

The locality demonstrates a coherent pattern of development, through similar building lines, scale, and height. Substantial green verges, together with generous spacing between groups of semi-detached and terraced dwellings, together make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

No 22 comprises a detached property set within a spacious plot, prominently positioned at the junction of [address] and [address]. The proposal is to construct a two-storey dwelling attached to the side of the existing property, which would be read as a pair of semi-detached dwellings. However, the width of the proposed building does not replicate that of the adjoining property, instead comprising just over half the width of No 22 and featuring a vertical fenestration arrangement that is at odds with the horizontal openings at No 22. As such the proposal would appear visually discordant and unbalanced in terms of its scale, massing, proportions and design relative to the adjoining building.

A substantial two storey front gable projection is also proposed, which would extend the front elevation significantly forward of both its semi-detached neighbour (No 22) and the established building line along this section of [address]. While the appellant has provided examples of front gables beyond the junction of [address] and [address], these are not situated within the immediate context of the site. In assessing the proposal, the front elevation must be considered within the setting and architectural character of the southern section of [address]. Furthermore, the projecting gables at Nos 21 and [address], and Nos 24 and [address], along with 29 and [address], form part of a deliberate, balanced ‘set-piece’ design, characteristic of the garden city suburb style. No such compositional balance is achieved in the proposed development.

Although double-height projecting bays are present within the immediate context along [address], their depth of projection from the front elevations is significantly less pronounced than that proposed. Furthermore, the prevailing roof form of adjoining properties is hipped, and the introduction of a forward-projecting gable extension would therefore appear at odds with the established design and architectural character of the southern section of [address].

The development would be clearly visible from a range of viewpoints along [address] and [address]. At my site visit, I observed that the substantial height of No 22 results in a prominent building that is noticeably higher than the prevailing height of surrounding development. The addition of a further attached building of the same ridge height would exacerbate this relationship and appear at odds with the established pattern and scale of development.

I have had regard to commentary from the Council regarding the spacing of the development with the neighbouring property, [address]. However, I am satisfied that sufficient distance will be retained with this property. Additionally, the use of render and red brick would be out of place in this context. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, the substantial scale and incongruous design of the proposed development would appear out of place within this setting, creating an imbalance in relation to the adjoining building, the terraced properties in the vicinity of the proposal at [address] and the character and appearance of the wider area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This is contrary to Policies 7B and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management, Development Plan Document (2013) (DPD), which together seek development that complements the existing area’s building pattern, street sequence, detailing and scale, along with ensuring high quality architecture and a positive visual impact. I also find conflict with Policies D3 and D4 of The London Plan (2021) (LP), which collectively seek high quality design which responds to local distinctiveness through layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape; with due regard to existing street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions. I additionally find conflict with Policy H2 of the LP in so far as it requires well-designed new homes on small sites. Living conditions – adjoining occupiers at [address]

The rear elevation of the proposed dwelling would align with the rear elevation of No 22 and would be positioned approximately 3m from the boundary with No [address] (No 27). Due to this close proximity, together with the scale and massing of the two-storey development, the proposal would create an overbearing and oppressive environment within the rear garden area of No 27. This would be detrimental to the outlook of the adjoining occupiers at No 27 and would significantly worsen their living conditions.

The planning application is not accompanied by a technical report on daylight and sunlight impacts and, therefore, I will need to rely on planning judgment. Given the orientation of the site, whereby No 27 lies to the east of the proposal, the proximity of the development, together with its scale and massing, would result in a reduction of afternoon sunlight to the rear garden area of No 27 and thereby adversely affecting the living conditions of its occupiers.

Turning to privacy, I note that obscurely glazed windows are proposed at first-floor level overlooking No 27, thereby reducing opportunities for direct views of the garden area of this property. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, this matter could be controlled by planning condition to secure obscured glazing in perpetuity.

[name] note that no representations have been received from adjoining interested parties objecting to the proposal, this does not make the scheme acceptable or justify the harm that I have identified to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. Furthermore, I note a recent appeal decision at the site1, where a proposal for a two-storey, detached dwelling house was dismissed in June 2024. Although the Inspector did not identify harm in relation to living conditions, the scheme is materially different, with a greater separation distance between the proposed built form and No 27 than in the current proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address]. It is contrary to Policy 7B of the DPD which requires a high standard of amenity for adjacent uses in new development, including good levels of daylight and sunlight. I further find conflict with Policies D3 and D6 of the LP which require proposals to deliver appropriate outlook and amenity, in addition to ensuring that the design of 1 APP/A5270/W/23/3334054. development should provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to surrounding housing and minimise overshadowing.

I note the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is a matter to be resolved between the parties. My determination of this appeal is based on the planning merits of the case.

The proposal would deliver a family sized dwelling in a location with good public transport links. It would make a modest contribution to the supply of housing and help address the need for new homes in the Borough, set in the context of a delivery shortfall in the first six years of the London Plan period.

Whether paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged depends upon the manner in which the shortfall is distributed across the remaining plan period. However, even if I were to assume, for the purposes of this appeal only, that the requisite supply does not exist, the adverse impacts of the appeal scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, set out in paragraph 11 of the Framework, does not apply.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.