- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Carla Livingstone
- Authority
- Ealing (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6005995
- Application reference
- 254825FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Single-storey rear extension to a sui generis house in multiple occupation, adding two en-suite units (29 to 31)
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- L2(1)(d)(ii), S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Ealing Development Management DPD 2013 Policy 7B
- Main issues
- living conditions of existing occupiers
Summary
A single-storey rear extension adding two units to a 29-unit house in multiple occupation (HMO) in Ealing was dismissed on a non-determination appeal. The extension would sit close to the only or main windows of two existing units, and no assessment showed their daylight, sunlight and outlook would be acceptable. The inspector gave the two units substantial weight under S4 but found the harm, tied to L2(1)(d)(ii), weightier.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "other changes are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of this appeal. I have therefore not gone back to the parties to seek any comment" (DL ¶2).
- Living conditions: harm. "In the absence of any substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise, the proposed development would have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of bedrooms 5 and 30" (DL ¶9).
- L2(1)(d)(ii): CONFLICT. "The proposed scheme therefore conflicts with the development plan and policy L2 d ii of the Framework. I attach greater than substantial weight to the identified adverse effect of the proposed development" (DL ¶16).
- Conservation area: no harm. "the proposed extension would not have a harmful effect on the significance of the ECCA and the setting of the CCA" (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
S4(1) is set out (DL ¶14) and the benefits "are afforded substantial weight in favour of the appeal scheme" (DL ¶15). The letter does not then say the benefits are substantially outweighed. It concludes on the plan: "The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it" (DL ¶17).
What made the difference
The lack of a daylight and sunlight assessment for the two affected rooms. A site-specific assessment, or a layout that kept clear of the only window of room 5, would have been needed.
Transferable points
- L2(1)(d)(ii) (acceptable living standards for residents and neighbours) was used as the Framework test for harm to existing occupiers within the same building (DL ¶16).
- A daylight report prepared for another site does not show that a scheme is acceptable (DL ¶9).
- Caution: "greater than substantial weight" is not a Framework weight, and the S4 conclusion is not stated in the policy's terms (DL ¶16–17).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | conflict | harm to outlook, daylight and sunlight for existing rooms 5 and 30; no site-specific daylight assessment; letter says "policy L2 d ii" and gives "greater than substantial weight" to the adverse effect (DL 8-9, 16) | |
| S4(1) | fail | S3 and S4 set out; the conclusion is expressed as plan conflict not outweighed by material considerations, without stating that the benefits are substantially outweighed (DL 14-17) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | mapped: two units, with effective use of land under L3 and social and economic benefits, given substantial weight together; HO7 not named (DL 15) |
| HE9 | neutral | mapped: no harm to the Ealing Common CA or the setting of the Creffield CA; extension not visible from the public realm (DL 13) |
Key facts
- Appeal against non-determination; the Council said it lacked information on land use and the relationship between units (DL 3)
- Extension would sit close to the only window of room 5 and the main window of room 30 (DL 8)
- A daylight and sunlight report for a scheme at 15 Hanger Lane did not assess this proposal (DL 9)
- Parties not consulted; changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.