Enlargement of first floor rear outrigger

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003459 102 Rusthall Avenue, Ealing, Chiswick W4 1BS • 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 Jamie Prescott against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing. • The application Ref is 252239HH. • The development proposed is ‘Enlargement of first floor rear outrigger’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the enlargement of first floor rear outrigger at 102 Rusthall Avenue, Ealing, Chiswick W4 1BS, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 252239HH, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Nos 2451-PA-202 P03, 2451-EX-001 P01, 2451-PA-201 P05 and 2451-PA-101 P06. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 100 Rusthall Avenue with specific regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal dwelling is a two-storey terraced property which has seen several extensions to its rear including a first-floor rear extension. One of its directly attached neighbours is 100 Rusthall Avenue which has also been extended to its rear including a first-floor rear extension. The properties possess a unique relationship, with their boundary lines being angled towards each other. Appeal Decision 6003459 2 5. The appeal proposal is to increase the width of the existing first floor rear extension. The proposed extension would extend along the boundary shared with No 100, other than for the section closest to the main dwelling, which would be set further from the boundary to create a lightwell for the existing bathroom window. Directly adjacent to the boundary in the rear elevation of No 100 is a window to a first-floor habitable room which at the time of my site visit appeared to be used as a study. I observed on my site visit when standing in this room that the outlook from this window is already limited as a result of both the first-floor extensions present at No 100 and No 102, with occupant’s views directed towards the gardens to the rear. 6. The proposal would result in the addition of built form at first floor level against the boundary and would be clearly visible from the rear window of No 100, from which it would narrow the outlook compared with the existing situation. However, it would be set away from the window through the inclusion of the proposed lightwell and the sloping roof would fall to a modest height along the shared boundary. These design factors would allow for an outlook across the sloping roof to be retained and would be sufficient that it would not result in a harmful reduction in outlook, sense of enclosure or tunnelling effect compared with the existing situation. 7. The Ealing Design Guidance (2022) recommends that a ‘45 degree rule’ is used as a guide in assessing the acceptability of extensions in relation to overshadowing. This would appear to be breached in relation to No 100’s nearest habitable room window by both the existing rear extension at the appeal dwelling and to a greater degree by the proposed extension. However, the roof of the proposed extension would be below the height of the existing outrigger. Therefore, it would have a very limited effect on daylight, restricted to a slight reduction in light coming down the existing gap between extensions. Given the orientation of the dwellings and the height of the proposal relative to the existing extensions, it would not result in a material reduction in sunlight beyond the existing situation. Consequently, it would not be harmful to living conditions in these respects. 8. I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of 102 Rusthall Avenue with specific regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. The proposal therefore complies with Policies D1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013). These all, amongst other things, seek for new development to achieve a high-quality environment for itself and its neighbours. 9. It would also comply with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires development to achieve a high standard of amenity. I further find no conflict with Policy DAA of the emerging Ealing Local Plan which requires development to achieve a high quality of environment, including in its effect on its neighbours. Other Matters 10. Interested parties have raised concerns regarding trespass and potential oversailing of a shared boundary. However, these are civil matters that falls outside the scope of this appeal. 11. I have had regard to the concerns raised by interested parties about the impact the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the host property and area. However, although I am mindful that the reason for refusal addressed the Appeal Decision 6003459 3 impact on living conditions alone, I am nevertheless satisfied that the domestic scale and detailed design of the development are appropriate in this context. Therefore, the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on the overall character or appearance of the area or the host dwelling. 12. The issue of impact on property values has also been raised. It is a well-founded principle that the planning system does not exist to protect private interests such as the value of land or property. Conditions 13. Time limit and plans conditions are necessary and reasonable in order to provide certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the host property, it is necessary to impose a planning condition requiring the use of matching materials as proposed. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above. L McKay INSPECTOR