Erection of a single storey side and rear extension, front porch and part first floor side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009508 6 Longridge Lane, Southall UB1 3JH • 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 J Thandi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing. • The application Ref is 253689HH. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey side and rear extension, front porch and part first floor side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The site visit was originally arranged to be unaccompanied. However, during the site visit the appellant offered access to the appeal property and because of the issues raised as part of this appeal an inspection was made from the entrance to what is an active construction site. 3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in December 2025 but does not raise any new matters which affect the assessment of this appeal scheme. Main Issue 4. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, including the streetscene. Reasons 5. The appeal property is an end of terrace 2-storey dwelling which is currently being altered, including by the erection of roof dormer extensions and additions at ground and first floor level. The proposed development includes the erection of a 2-storey side extension and other alterations comprising rear and front additions. 6. It is unclear whether the current alterations being undertaken to the property are associated with the appeal scheme but planning permission has been granted for the erection of a front porch, a hip to gable roof extension and an 8-metre deep full width single storey rear extension (Ref 250213FUL). The appellant claims that this permission establishes a clear fallback position for substantial extensions to the Appeal Decision 6009508 2 host property, including a resulting built form comparable scale and massing to the appeal scheme. It is noted that the approved 2-storey side addition would be of a shorter length than the current proposed 2-storey side extension and, for this reason, moderate weight is given to the fallback position claimed by the appellant. 7. Also relevant from the planning history is an appeal which was dismissed for the erection of a single storey rear extension and a 3-bedroom dwelling to the side of the property (Ref APP/A5270/W/25/3365339). The appellant claims that the proposed development is materially different to the dismissed appeal scheme, including by reason of reducing the width of the proposed side extension to accord with the approved scheme. 8. Although there have been amendments which have sought to respond to the previous Inspector’s judgements, the existing and proposed additions to the property, would represent a substantial cumulative increase in the scale and massing of this dwelling. In addition to the approved scheme, this appeal scheme includes additional first floor rear extensions, including as part of the 2-storey side extension. Although not part of the appeal scheme, the dormer roof extensions are part of the existing additions which have already added significant bulk to the property. 9. Overall, and taking into account the approved scheme, cumulatively with the other alterations being undertaken, the proposed development would not be subservient or subordinate to the host property. Instead, the resulting property would be a large dwelling that would fail to respect the character and appearance of the of this modestly sized end of terrace dwelling and the terrace within which it is situated. Further, by reason of length, siting and massing the proposed 2-storey side extension would be an overbearing and visually dominant feature within the streetscene of Baird Avenue and the access to the parking area associated with Sheringham Tower. The visual dominance would be accentuated by the difference in ground levels between the resulting property and Baird Avenue. 10. It is acknowledged that Sheringham Tower is a large apartment block which is also a visually dominating built form of development sited adjacent to the property. However, this appeal has been assessed based upon the context of the property, including its size and relationship to the terrace, the design of the scheme and the siting of the proposed side extension adjacent to the shared boundary with Baird Avenue. 11. The appellant’s claims associated with the proposed development respecting the existing building line of the terrace, the setting back of the flank wall from the shared boundary with Baird Avenue and the variations in roofscape do not outweigh the unacceptable harm which has been identified to the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. 12. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the streetscene, and, as such, it would conflict with Policies 7.4 and 7B of Ealing’s Development Management Development Plan Document and Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (LP). Amongst other matters, these policies require the design of development to be of high quality, appropriate in scale and building pattern and appropriate to its context. The status of Policy DAA of the Ealing Draft Appeal Decision 6009508 3 Local Plan has not been clarified and, as such, this policy has been given limited weight in the determination of this appeal. 13. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR