Appeal 6001467

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension to existing front porch. Single storey front extension. Single storey rear infill extension. Alterations to fenestration at [site address] , Clayhall, Redbridge, Ilford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2232/25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: • Block Plan, [name]. D10 • [name], [name] D02 • [name], [name]. D06 • [name], [name]. D07 • Proposed Section AA, [name]. D08 • Proposed Section BB, [name].D09

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

I have taken the description of development used in the heading above and in my formal decision from the Council’s decision notice. This accurately describes all aspects of the proposed development.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of occupiers at [address] (No.54) with regard to outlook and natural light.

The appeal property relates to a two-storey semi-detached property along [address]. The property benefits from an existing ‘L shaped’ rear extension. Surrounding development includes mainly semi-detached properties of a similar size and style. The proposed rear extension would infill the existing rear extension.

Whilst the proposed rear extension would be visible from the rear windows of No.54, the separation distance between the proposed extension and the rear windows would ensure that outlook from these windows would not be unacceptably harmed. The extension would also be visible from the rear garden of No.54. However, the existing extension is already partially positioned along the shared boundary. The extension would also be single storey in height and No.54 benefits from a large garden, much of which would be some distance away from the proposed extension. It would therefore not materially harm the outlook from the garden area. Overall, the extension would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No.54, by way of outlook.

Regarding natural light, the separation distance between the existing rear windows of No.54 and the proposed extension would ensure the provision of adequate daylight to the rear windows. Due to the small scale of the proposed extension, and the overall size of the garden, the garden area of No.54 would also receive adequate levels of daylight.

Given the orientation of the site, the positioning of the proposed extension and its small scale, the provision of sunlight to the rear windows of No.54 would not be harmed. Whilst there may be some very minor loss of sunlight to part of the rear garden in the late afternoon, given the small size of the extension, this would be short lived and not result in unacceptable harm. Additionally, most of the garden would be unaffected by the proposed extension, given its generous size in comparison to the small scale of the extension.

For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers at No.54 with regard to outlook and natural light. The scheme would be in accordance with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 and Policy D3 of the London Plan. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that avoids adverse impacts to neighbouring properties.

The Council do not raise any concerns regarding the proposed front extension or the changes to the fenestration. I see no reason to disagree with this.

In the interests of certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development as well as the approved plans. I have also attached a condition requiring the extensions to be constructed in materials matching the existing dwelling in order to maintain the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would comply with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal is allowed.