Installation of a 3 metre x 3 metre pergola with open sides

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 March 2026 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004894 8 Blandford Road, Chiswick, Ealing W4 1DU • 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 Ms Sukirta Ramanathan against the decision of the London Borough of Ealing Council. • The application Ref is 251522HH. • The development is the installation of a 3 metre x 3 metre pergola with open sides. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a 3 metre x 3 metre pergola with open sides at 8 Blandford Road, Chiswick, Ealing W4 1DU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 251522HH, and the plans submitted with it. Procedural Matters 2. This appeal relates to development that has already been carried out. As the application is retrospective, I have considered the submission accordingly. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the Bedford Park Conservation Area (the CA); and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal dwelling is a modestly scaled two storey palisaded mid-terrace house, with a two storey rear outrigger and a relatively small rear garden. It sits in a terrace and street of similarly designed and scaled terraced or semi-detached houses, within an area in the northern part of the CA designated as the Outer Residential character area. 5. The Bedford Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2007) (the BPCAA) identifies that the significance of the CA rests predominantly in its buildings of the 19th Century Aesthetic Movement that define the character of the central areas, as well as that of the Outer Residential character area, which demonstrates a lighter and developer Appeal Decision 6004894 2 led approach to this style. The appeal dwelling represents a clear example of the character of this Outer Residential area and makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. 6. The CA is a heritage asset to which I have a statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. I must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 7. The appeal development is a pergola type structure that sits to the rear of the garden of the appeal dwelling, adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring property at 10 Blandford Road (No.10). Measuring 3 metres x 3 metres in plan, the pergola covers approximately a quarter of the rear garden. It is approximately 2.4 metres in height with a flat roof made up of adjustable louvres and has vertically retractable but not completely opaque shade curtains to its front and sides. 8. The Bedford Park Conservation Area Management Plan (2007) (the BPCAMP) sets out guidance on the Council’s approach to managing the future of the CA. This states that outbuildings will normally be allowed no larger than 10 cubic metres. The measurements of the pergola provide for approximately 21.6 cubic metres of covered space. 9. However, the pergola does not appear or function as a fully enclosed outbuilding, and from my site visit it is clear that, notwithstanding its adjustable louvred roof, it appears and functions as an open garden structure. This is the case even with the deployment of the front and side curtains. The height of the pergola results in it being taller than the boundary fences to the garden, but not excessively so, reflecting the height of sheds and structures in other gardens in the immediate local area. 10. The guidance for outbuildings in the BPCAMP is advice that should be applied to the circumstances and context and, as a pergola and not an outbuilding, its light open frame does not result in it appearing as a particularly dominating or incongruous feature within its garden setting. Rather, as a pergola and not an outbuilding, it appears to be of a height and scale that reflects the local open garden scene with its existing garden structures, outbuildings and tall fences. 11. For these reasons, I find that the development of the pergola accords with the BPCAMP and does not result in any significant detriment to the significance of the CA and its established character or appearance. Living Conditions 12. For the 3 metres along the rear most part of the boundary fence with No.10, the pergola is located next to and is taller than the fence. However, from my site visit it is evident that the pergola is light and open in nature and is not of a scale or height that results in any significant addition or a sense of enclosure to the garden or house of this neighbouring property. 13. Similarly, given the height, extent of the pergola, and its location at the rear of the garden and its open nature, notwithstanding its adjustable louvred roof and retractable curtains, it does not result in any significant degree of overshadowing of the garden or house at No.10. Appeal Decision 6004894 3 14. For these reasons, I find that the pergola does not result in any significant impact on enclosure, outlook or light to the neighbouring property at No.10 to the extent that it would cause detriment to the living conditions of its occupiers. Other Matters 15. Although not given as a main reason for refusal by the Council, the officers report states that the pergola would result in undue overlooking. However, from my site visit it is evident that the pergola does not provide for any greater opportunities for overlooking than the garden without a pergola. As such, it does not result in any harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers through overlooking and concomitant loss of privacy. 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal development does not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the CA, preserving its significance, and does not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such, it accords with Policies 7.4, 7B and 7C of the Ealing Development DPD (2021), Policies D3, D6 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and is in full compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Collectively these seek development that is of high design quality, sympathetic to local character, preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas and achieve a high standard of amenity for adjacent users. 17. The Council has found that the proposal would be contrary to policy D4 of the London Plan (2021). However, as this policy does not relate directly to development proposals, but to the Council’s adoption of design policy and design management, I have not done so. Conditions 18. As the development to which this appeal relates has been completed there is no reason for me to add the standard condition on the timing of implementation. The development also appears to have been completed in accordance with the submitted plans and details with the original application, therefore, conditions in these regards are not necessary. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR