London Borough of Ealing appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Ealing?
Learn how selected Ealing decisions described character and appearance before testing your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 120 of 167
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 44
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 70
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 114
- of 120 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Ealing LPA (51.522222, −0.33448). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Ealing appeal findings
Ealing decisions on character and appearance
Displayed examples lean more toward dismissals than the matched local set. The positive comparison is a rear extension.
Counted against appeals
Why Ealing changes still fell short
Pattern and scale did not match
The Inspector said the side extension would not complement the building pattern or scale and concluded that it harmed the area’s character and appearance.
Dormer needed a roof-hip alteration
The Inspector found the dormer could not be installed without altering the roof hip and concluded that the combined proposal harmed the surrounding area.
Small amendments changed no findings
A better house connection and glazed rear panel were treated as small improvements that did not alter the Inspector’s main findings.
Helped or needed
When rear visibility helped in Ealing
Rear views were unavailable
Although the detailing differed from the terrace, the Inspector found no harm because nearby roads and houses could not see the rear extension beside the recreation ground.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the proposal breaks building pattern, scale or roof shape?
- Can nearby roads or houses see the altered part of your proposal?
- Do your changes answer the stated concern, rather than only improve details?
The rear-extension example faces a recreation ground, so it may not illuminate visible side or roof proposals. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
12 December 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a part first floor rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I recognise that the detailing would be at odds with other houses within the terrace, but rear views are not available from any nearby roads or houses because of its location next to the recreation ground. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the house or wider area and as such would not conflict with The National Planning Policy Framework (2023) and Policies D4 of the London Plan (2021) and 7.4 of the DMDPD which encourages development that complements and is sympathetic to local character.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
25 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension with associated alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As with the previous scheme, the extension would not exceed the depth of the existing dwelling which has been extended to the rear. I also acknowledge that the extension would be better connected with the main dwelling and that the access to it from the rear entrance would be blocked off with a glazing panel. However, these are small improvements which do not alter my main findings.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
12 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. There is conflict Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) which amongst other things seek to ensure developments deliver good design and complement the building in terms of materials and design.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
3 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would therefore not comply with the requirement for development to enhance local context contrary to policy D3 of The London Plan (2021). The proposed development would not complement the building pattern or scale, and as such would not achieve a high standard of amenity, contrary to Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013).
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
27 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a roof extension and enlargement of existing dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As the proposed dormer could not be installed without the proposed alterations to the hip of the roof, I therefore find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This would not comply with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Adopted Development Management Plan (2013) and Policy 1.1 of the Adopted Ealing Local Development Framework [name] (2012), insofar as they relate to good design and the positive relationship between new development and the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2