Appeal 6007003

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a ground floor side and rear extension to the flat of a terrace house at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/06856/FULL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The City of Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 (2026) (the CP) was adopted in January 2026 following a partial review and after the refusal of planning permission. The previous policies referred to within the Council’s reason for refusal have been replaced by Policies 42 and 45 of the CP. The appellant’s submissions note this change, and they have had the opportunity to make comments through the appeal process. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property, and whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Queens Park Estate Conservation Area (the CA).

The appeal site comprises the [site address] of a two-storey terraced property, situated in a residential area characterised by similar buildings. There is consistency in the layout, scale and architectural style of the properties on [address] and in the surrounding area, including terraced housing with two-storey, pitched roof closet wings to the rear elevations. As such, the CA has a homogenous character with consistent materials and repetition of architectural detailing throughout.

From my observations on site and the evidence before me, I find the significance of the CA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, largely derives from its architectural and historic interest, being a large and well-preserved area of picturesque Victorian cottage-style housing, characterised by its wide streets set in a grid pattern. The appeal site contributes to the significance of the CA comprising one of the many unlisted buildings of merit original to the estate with similar architectural characteristics to surrounding properties, and situated on the main street running through the CA.

The Queens Park Estate Conservation Area Audit 29 (April 2005) (the CAA) highlights that in some locations, open gaps at the end of terraces provide views down the rear elevations to rear closet wings of consistent detail. Where rear elevations are prominent, the scale and design of rear extensions requires particularly careful consideration and may not be acceptable. It goes on to state a rear extension will usually be limited to ground floor level and this will only be acceptable where it is subordinate to the parent building, uses high quality materials and detailing, and does not significantly reduce outdoor amenity space.

In this context, parts of the rear elevations on the same side of [address] as the host property can be viewed from [address] and [address] at either end. However, due to existing boundary treatments, these views are generally limited to the upper floors and roofs of the properties and their closet wings nearest to those streets. Given its position within the terrace, the rear elevation, ground floor and closet wing of the host property do not appear prominent from surrounding streets.

The proposal would alter the character and appearance of the rear elevation of the host property and its closet wing. However, given its scale, height and design in relation to the form of the host property, there would be a modest overall visual effect in this instance. Despite extending beyond the rear elevation of the closet wing, and in combination with the extension to the side, the proposal would be a subordinate addition at ground floor level to the host property. The design of the proposal would also respect the detailing and materials of the property, and its scale would not significantly reduce the available garden space.

Due to its position within the terrace, the proposal would not be readily apparent from the public domain such that it would have any significant or unacceptable visual impact on the townscape in the immediate or wider surrounding area. Given its height and existing boundary treatments, including some landscaping at the host property and neighbouring properties, the proposal would also have limited prominence from the private domain beyond the nearest properties.

The Council has granted planning permission1 for a smaller side infill extension only to the host property, which would not extend beyond the rear elevation of the closet wing. Although the full details are not before me, this demonstrates that the principle of alterations to the closet wing would not be unacceptable if suitably designed. The information before me suggests there may be other examples in the area of purportedly similar extensions to closet wings. I also note the Council’s concerns and the apparent absence of other extensions projecting beyond the rear of closet wings in this terrace. However, I am not persuaded that the additional and relatively limited scale of the proposal beyond the rear and side elevations of the 1 Planning application ref: 25/09151/FULL closet wing would visually subsume and undermine its inherent form, or result in an overly dominant, visually prominent and unacceptable addition to the property.

As it would only largely be discernible from the rear of properties in the immediate area of the site, any visual impact of the proposal on the townscape in the surrounding area and the significance of the CA would be limited. It would also not impact on any specific local views or landmarks identified within the CAA. I acknowledge the apparent uniformity of rear elevations within the terrace. However, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host property or harm the significance of the CA.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property, and it would preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. It would therefore accord with Policies 42 and 45 of the CP. Amongst other things, these policies aim for development to have regard to the character and appearance of the area, adjacent buildings and heritage assets, as well as the prevailing character, architectural quality and degree of uniformity in the surrounding townscape.

The Council does not find conflict with the development plan in relation to the layout and scale of the proposal and potential effects on the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties. From the information before me and my observations on site, I see no reason to take a different view.

The Council has suggested conditions which I have considered against the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In some instances, I have made minor changes to wording to improve precision and enforceability.

A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. To contribute to the greening of Westminster, I have imposed a condition securing a scheme of details for a green roof to part of the extension, and the appellant has agreed to such provision. A condition securing suitable materials is necessary with regard to the character and appearance of the property and the area, which I have combined into a single condition. Given the proximity to neighbouring properties, I have also imposed the suggested condition regarding days and hours of construction works to protect living conditions of neighbouring residents.

For the above reasons, the proposal would comply with the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos SP – 00, SP - 06, SP – 07, SP - 08, SP – 09 and SP – 10.

Notwithstanding the approved drawings, prior to the commencement of construction of the development above ground level, a scheme of details to incorporate a green roof to the flat roof of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include detailed drawings and a biodiversity management plan in relation to the green roof, to include construction method, layout, species and maintenance regime. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the extension and retained and maintained in accordance with those details thereafter.

All new work to the outside of the building shall match the existing original work in terms of the choice of materials, method of construction and finished appearance. The facing brickwork shall match the existing original work in terms of colour, texture, face bond and pointing. This applies unless differences are shown on the approved drawings or are required by conditions to this permission.

Except for piling, excavation and demolition work, any building work which can be heard at the boundary of the site shall only be undertaken: • between 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday; • between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturday; and • not at all on Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays. Piling, excavation and demolition work shall only be undertaken: • between 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday; and • not at all on Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays. **** END OF CONDITIONS ****