Case Reference: 3366805

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 30 July 2025
by K L Robbie BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27th August 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/W/25/3366805
11 Spikes Bridge Road, Southall, Ealing UB1 2AS
• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London
Borough of Ealing.
• The application reference is PP-13730713.
• The development proposed is the erection of 2 storey 2-bedroom house.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The main issues are:
• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the
appal site and the surrounding area;
• Whether the proposed development makes adequate provision for
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG); and
• Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for car parking.
Reasons
Character and Appearance
3. The appeal site is situated at the end of a terrace of four properties on the junction
with Viking Road within an established residential area. The area is characterised
by semi-detached and short terraces of two storey housing of similar design origins.
The side garden of the host property contributes to a sense of spaciousness in the
street scene.
4. Whilst various properties, including the host property have been altered over time,
alterations tend to be relatively modest, and cumulatively do not alter the
characteristic sense of coherence of properties, nor have they diminished the
sense of spaciousness within the locality.
5. The appeal proposal would be almost the same width as the existing dwelling and
would follow the front building line of the existing terrace of properties. It would be
very close to the boundary with Viking Road at its front corner. The host property
has already been extended with a hip-to-gable roof extension, and the appeal
proposal would reinstate a hip on this end of the terrace, Nevertheless, the harm
which would be caused by the introduction of a bulky addition on the junction would
not be outweighed by the recessive roofline of this hipped roof feature.
Consequently, and notwithstanding the use of matching materials and the presence
of extensions on other properties nearby, the proposal would be at odds with its
immediate locality and would adversely affect the appearance of the host property
and the wider terrace as a result.
6. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the
character and appearance of the area in conflict with Policy D4 of the London Plan
2021 (London Plan) and Policies 7B and 7.4 of the Council’s Development
Management Development Plan Document 2013 (DPD). Amongst other things,
these policies seek to ensure new development comprises high quality design
appropriate for the surrounding context which is informed by and complements
local distinctiveness.
Biodiversity
7. Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act)
introduced a statutory framework for BNG. This applies for proposals submitted
after 2 April 2024 and includes most minor developments, such as the appeal
proposal (subject to some exemptions). The application is dated 28 January 2025
and therefore the proposed development is subject to the mandatory BNG
condition, which requires developers to deliver a BNG of at least 10%.
8. The Planning Practice Guidance is clear that it is for the appellant to demonstrate
that the on-site habitat would be less than 25 square metres (and therefore subject
to the de minimis exemption) sufficient evidence to support their justification should
be provided. The application form also states that the dwelling to be a ‘self-build
and custom build’ unit. However, I have no information to indicate that the dwelling
will be built or occupied in accordance with the requirements for this type of
housing. Moreover, I have no mechanism before me to secure the development as
such. I am therefore not satisfied that the development would benefit from any
exemption to the requirement to provide mandatory BNG.
9. Article 7(1A) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) Order 2015 (as amended) (DMP) sets out the minimum information
requirements that should accompany applications that are subject to the BNG
requirement. This includes the provision of a biodiversity metric for the appeal site.
As this is a legislative requirement at the point of application, it is not possible to
secure the information through a pre-commencement condition, as suggested by
the appellant.
10. Given BNG is a statutory requirement, this is a matter of importance and failure to
comply is a fundamental flaw of the proposal. As such, insufficient information has
been provided to demonstrate a baseline and, I am therefore not satisfied that the
BNG requirement has been fulfilled. Consequently, the proposal fails to satisfy the
statutory requirements for BNG as set out in the relevant Schedule of the Act.
Car Parking
11. The appeal site is located in an area with a PTAL rating of 2 and is located in a
Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The scheme indicates that 1 parking space would
be provided, whereas the Council in their officer report consider that 0.75 spaces
should be provided, in line with the requirements of London Plan Policy T6.1.
Although there would be an over-provision of car parking by 0.25 spaces, it would
be impractical to provide car parking at the level set out in the policy as a
maximum.
12. Therefore, although the appeal proposal would not strictly comply with the
requirements of London Plan Policy T6.1, the oversupply of parking would be
minimal, and a useable off-street parking space would be provided. Consequently, I
conclude that there would be no material conflict with London Plan Policy T6.1
which sets out parking standards for all residential developments.
13. To be car-free, a S106 legal agreement would be required to prevent future
residents from obtaining resident parking permits. I do not have one before me and
therefore any future resident of the proposed dwelling would be entitled to apply for
a residents parking permit.
Other Matters
14. The property on the opposite side of the junction with Viking Road has a single
storey extension to the side. Although its footprint appears to be similar to that of
the appeal proposal it is single storey and therefore far less bulky than the appeal
proposal. Consequently, it is not comparable to the appeal proposal and its
presence does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues above.
15. The appellant has provided several photographs of other developments in the local
area. The examples cited appear to vary in scale and design and I do not have their
full details before me. None are visible within the context of the appeal proposal or
their status with regards to planning permission is not clear. However, in almost all
instances, there is some set back of the front elevation and a step down in the roof
line and from the information before me appear to differ in context to that of the
appeal proposal in terms of the surrounding development. As such, I attribute
limited weight to any comparison with them. In any event, I must consider the
appeal on its own merits and the presence of these does not overcome the harm
that I have otherwise found.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
16. The proposal would result in the provision of one additional dwelling. However,
given the scale of the development any contribution towards housing supply would
be negligible and the weight that this carries in support of the proposal is reduced
as a consequence. These factors are not therefore sufficient to outweigh the harm
that I have identified in relation to character and appearance and BNG above. The
lack of harm I have found in relation to car parking provision does not outweigh the
harm I have found on the other matters and would not lead me to an alternative
conclusion.
17. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and
material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise. Therefore, for the
reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed.
K L Robbie
INSPECTOR