Extended terrace on the first floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 July 2026 by L Clark MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010178 30 Artesian Road, City of Westminster, London W2 5DD • 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 Mr Dan Ross against the decision of City of Westminster Council. • The application Ref is 26/00079/FULL. • The development proposed is an extended terrace on the first floor. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Main Issue 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 scheme. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the living conditions of the occupants of Number 70 Ledbury Road (No.70) with particular regard to outlook, light and noise. Reasons for the Recommendation 3. The appeal property is a terraced dwelling that is adjoined to No.70 which itself is located on a corner plot at the junction of Artesian Road and Ledbury Road. The rear of No.70 therefore attaches to the side elevation of the appeal property. There are windows on the rear elevation of No.70 that face towards the appeal site. 4. The proposed terrace would extend alongside a first-floor window of No.70. The properties already have a close relationship and outlook from the window is already restricted. The occupants of No.70 would look straight toward the terrace from the window, and the users of the terrace would have clear views into it. It would create a boxing in effect around the window, detrimentally affecting the outlook therefrom. 5. Similarly, light is already restricted due to the existing layout however there is some space for a degree of natural light to enter the window. This would be almost entirely eroded as a result of the proposal by filling the space that allows natural light to permeate. The terrace would therefore considerably worsen an arrangement that is already intimate in terms of outlook and light. 6. The terrace would only be enclosed by railings and due to its floor level and its extent across the entirety of the window, users would be stood immediately outside of the window of No.70. Any noise on the terrace, even conversational, would be immediately adjacent the windows on the rear elevation of No.70 and would therefore unavoidably increase noise levels for the occupants. Appeal Decision 6010178 2 7. There is some dispute between the parties as to the use of the room that the first- floor window in No.70 serves. It appears a planning permission has been granted that would lead to it being used as a W.C. Works appeared to be taking place at No.70 at the time of my site visit, but I was unable to view inside. There is no guarantee that the works that are taking place are in pursuant of that planning permission nor whether the internal layout will remain as shown on the plans. That being said, even if the first-floor window was to serve a W.C rather than a kitchen, it would be in such close proximity to the proposed terrace that it would not alter my findings above. 8. The proposal would therefore harm the living conditions of the occupants of No.70 in terms of outlook, light and noise and would conflict with Policies 7 and 42 of the City of Westminster City Plan 2026 which are concerned with protecting amenity amongst other things. Other Matters 9. The appellant should direct further concerns about the Council’s communication back to them. The same can be said for any amendments since the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. 10. I have not been provided with the specific planning history for the terrace at Number 28 Artesian Road. That said, it does not appear to extend across any windows of the neighbouring properties and therefore it is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. The absence of any objections from any occupants of No.70 does not negate the need for me to assess the effect of the scheme on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers since they could change over time. 11. The effect of the scheme on the Westbourne Conservation Area was not a contentious matter in the appeal. Given the location and scale of the proposal, I agree that it would not cause harm to the significance of the CA, such that both its character and appearance would be preserved. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan, and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. L Clark APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR