Appeal 3284804

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a ground floor rear extension and part first floor rear extension at [address], [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3046/21, dated 15 July 2021, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 202107/2LA/SE/S1, 202107/2LA/SE/S2, 202107/2LA/SE/02 and 202107/2LA/SE/04.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials that match those used in the existing building.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal site is occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling which has an existing part two-storey, part single storey rear extension and a rear dormer window. The site is located on a corner plot fronting [name], with a busy dual carriageway (A1400) to the side, separated from the property by a pedestrian footway and a grass verge. The surrounding area is suburban in nature, largely made up of residential properties with a number of commercial units on the opposite side of the A1400.

The proposed development would introduce a first-floor extension to extend the existing two-storey rear projection the full width of the dwelling. The proposal also includes a single storey rear extension to a modest depth of approximately 1.8 metres from the current rear elevation. The Council have no objections to this element of the proposal and I find no reason to disagree with this. Therefore, the following assessment will focus solely on the proposed first-floor extension.

The proposal would result in a two-storey element which covers the full width of the dwelling. However, as it would follow the form of the existing two-storey projection with a height lower than that of the main dwelling, the proposal would not appear as an overly dominant addition to the existing property. The resultant dwelling would have a similar footprint to at present and, although slightly larger in mass, it would not be vastly out of character with the design or scale of other properties in the area.

Although the proposed roof form would sit directly below the existing dormer, its simple form would not result in a busy roofscape. It would appear in a similar manner to the existing two-storey projection and therefore would not result in an incongruous addition or have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

There would be limited views of the proposal from [name], but due to the corner plot location of the appeal site, the first-floor extension would be visible from the adjacent A1400. Nevertheless, this visibility would be partially shielded by the existing two-storey projection which would be located between the proposed first floor extension and the road. Therefore, views of the proposal from the public realm would be minimal and would not significantly impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Consequently, the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area and would therefore comply with the relevant sections of Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018). These policies seek to ensure that new development is of high-quality design which respects the local character of the area, whilst ensuring household extensions complement the character of the existing building and are a subordinate addition.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have attached a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved plans, as this provides certainty and precision. A condition requiring the use of materials matching that of the existing building is also necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development.

A third party, Transport for London, has recommended several conditions largely relating to construction traffic and highway safety matters in relation to [address], which is adjacent to the appeal site and part of the Transport for [address] Network. However, as it is reasonable to assume that the operators of vehicles associated with the construction of the proposal will abide by existing on-street restrictions in the area, it is not necessary to impose such conditions in this instance. Comments relating to highway licenses are informative only and would not be reasonable to include as a condition.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.