Erection of a pergola to the rear of the property (retrospective)
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Character & Appearance
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 24 March 2023
by Kim Langford Tejrar LLB (Hons) BSc (Hons) PGDIP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 18 April 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/22/3312320
22 Enfield Road, Brentford TW8 9PB
• 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 Simeon Downes against the decision of London Borough of
Hounslow Council.
• The application Ref 00409/22/P2, dated 01 August 2022, was refused by notice dated
28 September 2022.
• The development proposed is ‘Erection of a pergola to the rear of the property
(retrospective)’.
Procedural Matter
1. The description of development was changed following submission of the
application to ‘Retrospective application for the retention of a rear pergola
attached to the house’s existing single storey rear infill and rear extensions’. As
‘retention’ is not a form of development, I have utilised the original description,
which better reflects the nature of the development proposed.
Decision
2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the ‘Erection of a
pergola to the rear of the property (retrospective)’ at 22 Enfield Road,
Brentford TW8 9PB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
00409/22/P2, dated 01 August 2022, subject to the following condition:
a) No roof, sides or other means of additional enclosure shall be installed or
constructed on the pergola hereby permitted without the prior written
permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are:
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area; and,
• The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of
neighbouring properties.
Reasons
Character and Appearance
Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/22/3312320
2
4. The appeal site is an end of terrace dwelling situated within Enfield Road; a
relatively narrow residential street with a tight grain of terraces which front the
road behind very shallow front gardens.
5. The appeal scheme seeks permission for the erection of a timber pergola type
structure which is already in situ. The pergola comprises of large timber legs
and horizontal timber joists which lean-to the extended rear elevation of the
host dwelling.
6. The site is not within a conservation area, and as such, the effect of the
proposal on the public domain is the relevant consideration. Due to the tight
grain of Enfield Road, the rear gardens of the dwellings are generally not visible
within the wider public domain or street scene. An exception to this is adjacent
to the appeal site, where another terrace fronts an alleyway known as ‘Enfield
Walk’ which offshoots from the road, turning its flank to the road. At this point,
it is possible to see the first few rear gardens of the terrace. Due to existing
mature landscaping, it is not possible to view the gardens fully, and this,
combined with the depth of the host dwelling, prevents any clear views into the
rear garden of the appeal site. As such, the pergola is not particularly visible in
the public domain and is certainly not prominent.
7. In any case, the pergola integrates well with the existing scale and proportions
of the extended terrace dwelling.
8. For these reasons, the appeal scheme complies with policies SC7, CC1 and CC2
of the Local Plan Volume One, adopted 2015 and the aims of relevant
guidance. These policies seek. Amongst other things, development which
complements the original building, harmonises with adjoining properties and
maintains the character of the general street scene and amenity of private
spaces.
Living Conditions
9. The appeal scheme does extend almost the full width of the rear elevation and
is thus close to the boundaries with neighbouring properties. It is an outrigger
to an existing rear extension, and therefore it does extend some depth from
the plane of the original rear elevation.
10. However, it is entirely open without a roof or sides and is of a modest scale and
height. As such, it does not overbear or overshadow the neighbouring attached
terraced property, its closest neighbour. The existing outlook across the
gardens is very limited and, in any case, the neighbouring property has also
been extended in part to the rear, has a full 1.8 to 2 metre solid fence
boundary treatment and some mature vegetation along the boundary which
mitigates any impact the pergola might have had in respect of loss of outlook.
As such, the pergola does not adversely affect the living conditions of this
neighbouring property.
11. Due to the positioning of the other terrace and the distance with its rear
elevation, the appeal scheme also does not overbear, overshadow or result in
loss of outlook for this property.
12. For these reasons, the appeal scheme accords with policies SC7, CC1 and CC2
of the LP and the aims of relevant guidance.
Conditions
Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/22/3312320
3
13. The Council has requested two conditions; one to require the materials used in
construction of the pergola to match the existing property and another to
ensure construction in accordance with approved plans. Given that the pergola
is already constructed, I do not consider the latter condition to be necessary.
The dwelling is constructed in rendered and painted brick, and therefore I also
consider a condition requiring the timber pergola to match these materials to
be unnecessary. However, it would be important to maintain the openness or
otherwise transparency of the pergola to protect the living conditions of the
closest neighbour, and thus I consider it necessary to impose a condition
requiring prior written permission for any roof or further enclosure of the
structure.
Conclusion
14. For the reasons set out above, the appeal scheme accords with the relevant
policies of the development plan and no material considerations indicate that
the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the
development plan. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Kim Langford Tejrar
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.