Erection of single storey second floor rear extension, single storey ground floor rear extension, side extensions at ground and first floors, and alterations to fenestration including new windows, rooflights, and Juliet balcony

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 June 2026 by P Storey BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009162 36 West End Lane, Camden, London NW6 4PA • 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 Noam Galperin against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Camden. • The application Ref is 2025/5882/P. • The development proposed is erection of single storey second floor rear extension, single storey ground floor rear extension, side extensions at ground and first floors, and alterations to fenestration including new windows, rooflights, and Juliet balcony. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of single storey second floor rear extension, single storey ground floor rear extension, side extensions at ground and first floors, and alterations to fenestration including new windows, rooflights, and Juliet balcony, at 36 West End Lane, Camden, London NW6 4PA, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/5882/P, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan – Site Address: 36, West End Lane, London, NW6 4PA Proposed Roof Plan – 010 17.12.2025 Proposed Ground Floor Plan – 011 17.12.2025 Proposed First Floor Plan – 012 15.12.2025 Proposed Second Floor Plan – 013 15.12.2025 Proposed Section AA – 014 15.12.2025 Proposed Section BB – 015 15.12.2025 Proposed North Elevation – 016 15.12.2025 Proposed West Elevation – 016 17.12.2025 Proposed East Elevation – 017 17.12.2025 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) No development shall commence until the tree protection measures set out within Section 6 (Arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan) of the document titled “Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement” (dated 21st October 2025, MDA reference Appeal Decision 6009162 2 W43) have been installed on site. The tree protection measures shall be retained in place for the duration of the construction works and the development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the arboricultural protection and working methods set out in Section 6 of that document. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form described the development as “2nd floor rear extension to main dwelling”. However, the Council’s decision notice, the appeal form and the appellant’s statement of case all use the description set out in the banner heading above. That description more accurately reflects the development before me, and based on the submitted evidence, it is clear that the appellant considers it to be an accurate description of the proposal. I have therefore used that description for the purposes of determining this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Priory Road Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located within the Priory Road Conservation Area (the CA), the significance of which is derived principally from its cohesive group of mid-19th century Italianate buildings, including semi-detached villas characterised by visible pitched roofs, decorative detailing and a verdant setting. The Council’s CA Statement (the CAS) describes the area as having changed remarkably little since its development and identifies its special architectural and historic interest as arising primarily from that surviving Victorian built form. 5. The appeal property forms the end of a terrace of three dwellings at Nos 32-36 West End Lane, constructed during the 1980s. The CAS expressly notes that the redevelopment of these properties caused a break in the prevailing architectural style of this section of West End Lane. Furthermore, neither the terrace nor the appeal property is identified within the CAS as making a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the CA, and this is reflected in the Council’s Officer Report. 6. The submitted evidence confirms that separate planning permission has been granted for the ground floor rear extension, side extensions and alterations to fenestration. Consequently, the only matter in dispute is the acceptability of the proposed second-floor rear extension. 7. Having viewed the site, I acknowledge that the extension would be visible in some public views and from neighbouring properties. However, visibility alone does not amount to harm, and I am not convinced that it would appear incongruous or unsympathetic within its context. The appeal building already has an irregular form and exhibits a markedly different architectural character from the historic buildings that principally define the significance of the CA. It is a comparatively modern building whose contribution to the significance of the designated asset is limited. In that context, alterations to the building do not necessarily translate into Appeal Decision 6009162 3 corresponding harm to the character or appearance of the area, or the CA’s significance. 8. The proposed second-floor extension would occupy the rear portion of the building. Whilst it would add built form at second-floor level, it would remain contained within the overall envelope of the dwelling and would not extend above the highest part of the existing roof, nor would it overwhelm the host building or the wider terrace of which it forms part. Although additional massing would inevitably be created, I am not persuaded that the increase would be so substantial as to cause the building to appear unduly bulky, top-heavy or discordant. Nor do I find that the addition would compete to any significant degree with the building’s existing roof form such that its role in defining the appearance of the terrace would be materially undermined. Rather, whilst the extension would be visible in certain views, the existing mono-pitched roof would remain the dominant and defining feature of this end of the terrace when viewed from West End Lane. 9. I have also considered whether the proposal would interrupt or diminish the relationship between the modern terrace and the adjacent historic villas on Abbot’s Place. Whilst the Council places weight on the existing roof form as providing a visual transition between these elements and facilitating views towards the buildings beyond, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the extension proposed would materially impair the appreciation of those buildings or their contribution to the CA. The architectural interest of the CA would continue to be found overwhelmingly in the surviving Victorian and Italianate building stock identified in the CAS. The proposal would not erode those qualities, nor would it diminish the legibility of the CA’s historic pattern of development. 10. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area and it would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, resulting in no harm to its significance. Accordingly, the proposed development would accord with Policies D1 and D2 of the Camden Local Plan 2017, and Policy CK1 of the Kilburn Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2033, which collectively seek high quality design that responds appropriately to local context and character, and for development within conservation areas to preserve or enhance their character or appearance. Conditions 11. Conditions relating to the statutory time limit and approved plans are necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the materials to match those on the existing building is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. 12. Although the Council’s questionnaire does not suggest any additional conditions, the Officer Report states that the previous permission included a condition requiring compliance with the tree protection measures set out in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement. It further notes that report remains applicable to the current appeal scheme and that an equivalent condition would have been imposed had permission been granted. I have been provided a copy of that document and the previous decision notice, and on the evidence before me, it remains relevant to the development proposed. Accordingly, in the interests of safeguarding existing trees, it is necessary to Appeal Decision 6009162 4 impose a condition requiring compliance with the approved tree protection measures. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given, the proposed development would accord with the development plan, and there are no other considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out in my formal decision. P Storey INSPECTOR