Construction of a two-storey rear extension of 2.5m over the ground floor, at first and second floor level to provide enhanced bedroom and bathroom space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 March 2026 by Alice James BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002948 47 Faraday Road, Wimbledon, Merton SW19 8PE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Mahmoud Warriah against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Merton. • The application Ref is 25/P2440. • The development proposed is the construction of a two-storey rear extension of 2.5m over the ground floor, at first and second floor level to provide enhanced bedroom and bathroom space. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The appellant has submitted a Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing Assessment (DSOA) as part of the appeal. The appeals procedural guide makes it clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. The DSOA was not submitted with the original application. There has not been an opportunity for the council or interested parties to review and comment on this report. Accepting the additional material would therefore lead to procedural unfairness and thus I have determined the appeal on the material submitted with the original application. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the: • character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • living conditions of the occupiers of 45, 49 and 51 Faraday Road with particular reference to outlook, sunlight and daylight. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site is a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling located within Faraday Road, which is typically characterised by rows of terraces, some of which have been converted into maisonettes. Neighbouring properties have single storey and two storey rear projections in a range of different styles. Nevertheless, in general the first-floor elements and above do not cover the whole width of each individual property and are typically set in from the boundary on one side. Appeal Decision 6002948 2 5. This is reflected in the appearance of 45 and 47 Faraday Road’s (Nos 45 and 47) existing rear elements at first and second floor level which are currently aligned. The elements have a flat roof and are cladded with grey tiles one the second floor and brick on the first and ground floor. The rear elements Nos 45 and 47 are symmetrical in terms of massing and height on the first and second floor. This creates a balanced pattern of development which positively contributes to the existing character of the area. The properties are not uniform on the ground floor as No 47 has a large ground floor element with a flat and part pitched roof. No 47 has a dormer on the roof of the property and this matches the roof design of No 45. 6. The proposed development would enlarge the first and second floors of its host. It would extend across the full width of the property with a projection beyond the rear elevation of No 45. 7. The extension would not be set in from the boundary. The proposed development would break the alignment and symmetry of Nos 45 and 47’s rear elements at first and second floor level and this would unbalance the appearance of the host and neighbouring dwelling. Consequently, the proposed development would lead to an unsympathetic pattern of built form. 8. The proposal would have limited visibility from public vantage points, but it is visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. Due to its substantial scale, the proposed development would create a rear element which would be disproportionate and top heavy when compared to the existing host dwelling. The massing and position of the proposed development would have a harmful impact of the character and appearance of the host property. 9. The proposed development would have a harmful effect on character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposed development does not comply with the provisions set out in D12.3 and D12.4 of Merton Local Plan 2024 and Policy D4 of London Plan which seek to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area through high quality design. Living Conditions 51 Faraday Road 10. 51 Faraday Road is separated from No 47 by a narrow walkway. At first and second floor level there is a moderate gap between Nos 47 and 51. Both have rear extensions at this level which are set back from each other and therefore are not the complete width of the respective properties. No 51 has a two-storey rear extension with side windows which look across to the existing first and second floor projection and across the single storey ground floor element of No 47. 11. The proposed development would introduce additional built form across the full width of the property. This would erode the gap between Nos 47 and 51, thereby creating a tunnelling effect that would give rise to an increased sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No 51. The proposed rear extension by virtue of its massing and scale would appear conspicuous on views from first floor rear and side windows on No 51. The proposal would therefore unduly reduce the outlook to the rear and side windows of No 51 to detriment of the living conditions of these neighbours. Appeal Decision 6002948 3 12. Considering the orientation, height and bulk of the proposed development and the path of the sun it is likely that the proposed development would cause additional shadowing to the side windows of 51 Faraday Road. Thus, there is potential for the proposed development to reduce the sunlight received to the rear and side windows of No 51. 13. I have limited evidence before me to find whether daylight would remain at an acceptable level. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on daylight received to the rear and side windows of No 51. 49 Faraday Road 14. The evidence indicates that 49 Faraday Road (No 49) is a one-bedroomed maisonette on the ground floor. It has windows which look towards the appeal site. The outlook from these windows is already somewhat comprised due to the erection of a close boarded fence of the boundary. 15. Due to its siting, the proposed development would erode the gap between the properties and create a tunnelling effect. Due to the proximity to No 49, the positioning, height, massing and scale of the proposed development would create a dominating feature which would be detrimental to the outlook of No 49. 16. The close boarded fence of the boundary of No 49 will have already reduced the sunlight received to the rear and side windows of No 49. Having regard to the path of the sun plus the orientation and height of the proposed development, it is likely that the proposed development would result in additional overshadowing of the rear and side‑facing windows of No 49. Consequently, there is a reasonable prospect the further reduction in sunlight to the rear and side windows of No 49. 17. I have only limited evidence before me to determine whether daylight levels would remain acceptable. Thus, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would avoid a harmful reduction in daylight received to the rear and side windows of No 49. 45 Faraday Road 18. No 45 is attached to No 47 and both have a rear extension at first and second floor level which are aligned and have rear facing windows. The proposed development would project substantially more then the existing rear element on No 45. 19. The proximity and mass of the proposed rear extension would likely create a sense of enclosure which would likely reduce the outlook of No 45 causing a detrimental impact to these neighbours. 20. The proposed extension would project forward of the neighbouring windows of No 45. However, taking into account the path of the sun and the position of the properties it is unlikely to have a harmful impact on sunlight on windows on the first and second floor of No 45. However, this does not negate the harm I have found on other matters. 21. I have only limited evidence before me to determine whether the daylight levels would remain acceptable. I have concerns that the close proximity and the length would potentially impact on the daylight received to the rear windows of No 45. Appeal Decision 6002948 4 Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on daylight received to the rear windows of No 45. Conclusion 22. In conclusion, the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of 45, 49 and 51 Faraday Road with particular reference to outlook, sunlight and daylight. The proposed development would not comply with the provisions set out in policies D12.3 and D12.4 of Merton Local Plan 2024 which seek to ensure proposed developments are designed to a high standard in order to provide good quality living conditions for neighbouring occupiers. Other Matters 23. The appellant has raised policies D5, D6 D8, H2 and H10 of the London Plan. However, these policies have not been stated within the reasons for refusal, and they would not be directly relevant to the appeal before me. In any event, I have found the design of the proposed development to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring properties. Even if the proposal was to comply with these policies it would not outweigh the conflict I have identified with regards to policy D4 of the London Plan and Local Plan policies D12.3 and D12.4. 24. The proposed development would not change the overall type or tenure of the house. Consequently, this consideration weighs neutrally in my decision. 25. I acknowledge that the scheme would create a further bedroom for a family member and be in an accessible location. However, any benefits to be drawn in these senses would be insufficient to outweigh the multiple harms I have identified. Conclusion 26. For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. Alice James INSPECTOR