Erection of a first-floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 April 2024 by B J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/23/3335235 356 Oldfield Lane North, Greenford, UB6 8PT. • 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 Nabi Nazaree against the decision of Ealing Council. • The application Ref 233421HH, dated 14 August 2023, was refused by notice dated 13 October 2023. • The development proposed is the erection of a first-floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is Dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect the extension would have on the character and appearance of the host property and on the local street scene. Reasons 3. The street scene on the southeast side of Oldfield Road North is made up of a varied series of semi-detached and terraced houses, many with side extensions reducing the spacing between them. However, these past alterations have together maintained reasonable harmony, avoiding any serious visual clash of built form within the street frontage. 4. In marked contrast, the side extension proposed in this case would not only virtually remove the space between No 356 and its neighbour up to eaves level when viewed from the front, but would add an incongruous, hipped roof addition to the existing upright gable end of the building. 5. Even though the roof of the extension would reflect the sloping roof of the adjacent house, I consider that the overall effect would be of a jarring and intrusive clash of built form, adversely affecting the character and appearance of the otherwise harmonious local street scene. It would also create the impression of a terrace at a point where semi-detached pairs of dwellings predominate. 6. I recognise there is nothing objectionable in principle to extensions making more efficient use of existing dwellings and that the one proposed in this case would be set back from the main front elevation, in line with adopted design guidance. 7. However, I conclude overall that, due to its adverse impact on the street scene, the development would be in overriding unacceptable conflict with Policies 7.4 and 7B of the adopted Ealing Development Management Development Plan Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/23/3335235 2 Document with respect to local character and the quality of design, and that therefore this appeal should be dismissed. B J Sims INSPECTOR