Part two and part single storey side/rear wrap-around extension; and associated alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008686 108 Costons Lane, Greenford UB6 8RP • 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 Gul Kandagar against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing. • The application Ref is 260507HH. • The development proposed is described as “part two and part single storey side/rear wrap-around extension; and associated alterations”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. I note a number of inconsistencies within the submitted drawings, relating to the width of the proposed single-storey rear extension, the length of the proposed side extension and the depth of the intended rear dormer window. Whilst these discrepancies introduce a degree of uncertainty as to the precise form and detailing of the development, I have considered the proposal in the round, having regard to the submitted drawings and the parties’ representations. I am satisfied that sufficient information is available to enable a reasoned assessment of the overall scheme. 4. In addition, two sets of proposed plans bearing identical reference numbers have been submitted. These differ in that one set shows a first-floor window in the side elevation, whereas the other does not. The Council’s delegated report shows the proposed development without such a window. On this basis, and as it reflects the scheme considered by the Council in its determination, I have assessed the appeal on the assumption that no window is proposed in the side elevation. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6008686 2 Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal property is a pebble dashed end terraced dwelling with a two-storey gabled bay window. It appears to have been previously extended to the rear with a single storey flat roofed addition, which runs along the full width. The immediate area is residential and comprises similar two‑storey semi‑detached and terraced dwellings, typically finished in painted render or pebble dash with red tiled roofs, set back from the highway with small front gardens or driveways. The property has a hipped main roof (a distinguishing characteristic of Costons Lane and surrounding area), and the dwellings this side of the road. By virtue of limited visible alterations and uniform height and width, these factors lend a pleasant cohesive rhythm to the street which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The proposed rear extension, by reason of its scale and massing, would form an unduly dominant addition. The flat top shallow hipped roof would be unreflective of the original roof form of the host building. The proposed dormer window although set down from the ridge, would occupy a substantial portion of the roof slope. This would result in an overly large, boxy and incongruous addition that would unacceptably erode the original quality of the roof’s shape, appearing disproportionately large compared to neighbouring dwellings. Despite their limited visibility from the public realm, both these elements would be clearly visible to the rear of many neighbouring properties and as such sufficiently exposed. 8. The side extension would be built up to the site boundary. The submitted plans provide limited clarity as to its exact relationship with the principal elevation. Whether set back or aligned flush, the introduction of a subordinate hipped roof, in combination with the proposed hipped-to-gable roof alteration, would disrupt the established roofscape and undermine the symmetry and rhythm that currently defines the terrace. The cited example differs materially from the appeal scheme in both its design and scale, notably by virtue of a more substantial set-back and the retention of a clearly legible hipped roof form. As such, it does not provide a persuasive precedent in this case. 9. Overall, the cumulative effect of the proposed extensions and roof alterations would significantly increase the bulk of the dwelling and wrap development around the end of the terrace. The resultant form would compete with, rather than remain subordinate to, the host building, unacceptably eroding its architectural integrity and the cohesive character of the street and thus harming the character and appearance of the area. 10. Consequently, the scheme would conflict with Policies D3 or D4 of The London Plan, 2021, Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document, 2013. These, amongst other things, require proposals to positively respond to local distinctiveness and complement their building pattern, scale, materials and detailing, ensuring a positive visual impact. Other Matters 11. The proposal would provide additional living accommodation to meet the needs of a growing family. However, when set against the need to safeguard the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area, and in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development could not be achieved in a less harmful way, only limited weight can be attributed to this personal need. Such that it would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified. Appeal Decision 6008686 3 12. I note the appellant’s comments in relation to the processing of the planning application. However, these have little bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the appeal proposals. Any further concerns in this regard should be directed to the Council. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR