Demolition of garage for the proposal of a two storey side extension and the enlargement to existing single storey extension to the rear
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 24 August 2021
by C Osgathorp BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 02 September 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/21/3269365
40 Cayton Road, Greenford UB6 8BJ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Sunil Patel against the decision of the Council of the London
Borough of Ealing.
• The application Ref 204333HH, dated 23 October 2020, was refused by notice dated
16 December 2020.
• The development proposed is demolition of garage for the proposal of a two storey side
extension and the enlargement to existing single storey extension to the rear.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for demolition of
garage for the proposal of a two storey side extension and the enlargement to
existing single storey extension to the rear at 40 Cayton Road, Greenford
UB6 8BJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 204333HH, dated
23 October 2020, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: 170 P E01; 170 P E02; 170 P E03;
170 P E04; 170 P E05; 170 P P01; 170 P P02; 170 P P03; 170 P P04; and
170 P P05.
3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of
the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr Sunil Patel against the Council of the
London Borough of Ealing. This application is the subject of a separate
Decision.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the street scene and the surrounding area.
Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/21/3269365
2
Reasons
4. The area predominantly consists of semi-detached dwellings of similar scale
and appearance that are sited on a consistent building line behind modest front
gardens. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling which is located at
the end of Cayton Road adjacent to Northolt Rugby Club. It has an existing
single storey attached garage on the northern side of the property and a single
storey rear extension. The main roof of the dwelling is hipped, and the front
elevation features a small hipped projection.
5. The appeal scheme proposes the demolition of the existing side garage and the
erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. The
two storey extension would adjoin the side boundary and would be set back
around 300mm from the front wall of the dwelling.
6. The Council’s Interim Guidance Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning
Document 4 (SPD4) sets out that the front wall of a side extension should be
set back at least one metre from the front wall of the main house at first floor
and above, and the roof ridge line of an extension should be set below the
ridgeline of the main dwelling by at least 0.5m. It indicates that this is to
ensure that the extension would appear subordinate to the original house.
Nevertheless, SPD4 is guidance and does not have the same force as adopted
development plan policies. The acceptability of a proposal will depend on the
individual circumstances of the case.
7. The proposed extension would be set back from the front wall of the dwelling
and set down from the ridge line of the main roof, however this would be to a
lesser extent than the guidance in SPD4. Nevertheless, the proposed extension
would be modest in width and the overall composition would appear
proportionate and secondary to the existing dwelling. The roof of the proposed
extension would respect the pitch and hipped form of the main roof, which
would limit the bulk of the extension. The extension would therefore integrate
satisfactorily with the scale and form of the semi-detached property, and it
would not un-balance the semi-detached pair. Furthermore, the appeal site is
located at the end of Cayton Road, which would restrict views and prominence
of the proposal in the street scene.
8. Whilst the proposed extension would adjoin the side boundary, the large
separation from neighbouring buildings, as a result of the location of the appeal
site at the end of Cayton Road, would ensure that the proposal would not cause
a terracing effect in the street scene. I have had regard to the appellant’s
reference to existing two storey extensions in the locality and other decisions
made by the Council. However, whilst this is a material planning consideration,
it would not alter my findings for this appeal which I have determined on its
own merits.
9. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would
maintain the character and appearance of the street scene and the surrounding
area. The proposal would therefore accord with Policies 7.4 and 7B of the
Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document Adopted
December 2013 and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021. Amongst other things,
these policies seek high quality design and to ensure that new development
complements the building and local context. The proposal would also accord
with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, which, among
other matters, states that decisions should ensure that developments are
Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/21/3269365
3
visually attractive as a result of good architecture and are sympathetic to local
character. Whilst the proposal would conflict with some aspects of the guidance
in SPD4, it would accord with its underlying objectives to ensure that side
extensions appear subordinate to the original dwelling.
Conditions
10. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition
requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved
plans. This is for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. In
order to maintain the character and appearance of the dwelling and the
surrounding area, I have also imposed a condition requiring the external
surfaces of the development to be finished in materials to match those used in
the existing building.
Conclusion
11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
C Osgathorp
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 24 August 2021
by C Osgathorp BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date:02 September 2021
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/21/3269365
40 Cayton Road, Greenford UB6 8BJ
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr Sunil Patel for a full award of costs against the Council of
the London Borough of Ealing.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for demolition of garage for
the proposal of a two storey side extension and the enlargement to existing single
storey extension to the rear.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome
of the appeal, costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved
unreasonably, and this has directly caused the party applying for costs to incur
unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The application needs to
clearly demonstrate that this is the case, as parties in planning appeals
normally meet their own expenses.
3. The PPG provides examples of unreasonable behaviour by local planning
authorities. This includes both procedural matters, such as providing
information that is shown to be manifestly inaccurate or untrue; and
substantive matters, including: preventing or delaying development which
should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the
development plan, national policy and other considerations; vague and
generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which are
unsupported by an objective analysis; and, not determining similar cases in a
consistent manner.
4. The crux of the applicant’s costs claim is that the Council has ignored the
existing site context; it has not determined similar cases in a consistent
manner; and it has applied Supplementary Planning Document 4 (SPD4) as
though it is mandatory policy rather than guidance. Furthermore, the applicant
states that the Council has changed the description of the proposed
development without their permission.
5. Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan
Document Adopted December 2013 seek high quality design in new
development. Policy 7.4 states that development in Ealing’s existing built areas
should, amongst other things, complement their street sequence; building
Costs Decision APP/A5270/D/21/3269365
2
pattern; and scale. Whilst SPD4 is of some age, it provides design guidance for
householder developments, including two storey side extensions. This includes
that a proposed side extension should be set back at least 1 metre from the
front wall and set down 0.5 metre from the ridgeline of the main roof. I find
that the design principles relating to scale and massing are reasonable because
they encourage extensions that appear subordinate to and respect the
proportions of the host dwelling. Nevertheless, it is guidance and should not be
applied rigidly.
6. The applicant has drawn my attention to Council decisions at
No 1 Runnymede Gardens and No 1 Middleton Avenue, however these
examples are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. In both
instances, the officer’s report identified mitigating circumstances that weighed
in favour of the proposal. The side extension at No 1 Runnymede Gardens is
much wider than the current appeal scheme, however it provides a 1m set
back and the 0.5m set down sought by SPD4. The example at No 1 Middleton
Avenue relates to a detached dwelling and so it is of different form and
proportions to the semi-detached property at No 40 Cayton Road. The
applicant also refers to the Council decision at No 66 Runnymede Avenue, and
whilst this site is in a more prominent location, the extension is set back 1m
from the front wall and set down 0.5m from the ridgeline. Given the differences
between the proposals, I am not persuaded that the Council has been
inconsistent in its decision-making.
7. The applicant also identifies several other properties in the locality that have
had two storey side extensions. Details of the circumstances that led to the
approval of those examples are not before me, and I saw that the design
quality varies. No 7 Runnymede Gardens has a side extension without any set
back from the front wall or set down from the ridgeline of the main roof, and
this has un-balanced the semi-detached pair, resulting in a bulky,
disproportionate appearance. The extension at No 91 Darynton Drive is set
down from the ridgeline of the main roof, however this is because the roof is at
a shallower pitch, which appears rather awkward. The side extension at No 11
Cayton Road is more successful because it appears proportionate to the semi-
detached building due to the degree of set back from the front wall and the set
down of the matching hipped roof.
8. To my mind, the presence of extensions of varying quality in the locality would
not itself justify the proposal and it is reasonable that the appeal scheme is
considered on its own merits having regard to the current development plan
policies, which seek high quality design. The Council raised concerns regarding
the degree of set back of the proposed two storey side extension from the front
wall of the dwelling and the set down from the ridgeline of the main roof. As
can be seen from my decision, I have found that the proposal would achieve a
subordinate appearance and integrate satisfactorily with the host dwelling.
However, considerations relating to scale and massing are inevitably a matter
of planning judgement and I do not find that the Council acted unreasonably in
reaching its decision.
9. I acknowledge that the Council changed the description of the proposed
development without the consent of the appellant. However, in my decision I
have used the description shown in the application form and this has not
resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense to the applicant.
Costs Decision APP/A5270/D/21/3269365
3
Conclusion
10. For the reasons given above, I determine that the costs application should fail,
and no award is made.
C Osgathorp
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.