Appeal 6003271

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of ground floor single storey rear and side extension with semi covered canopy at the side at [site address] , Redbridge [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2753/25, 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 approved plans: • Location Plan, [name]. • Proposed Block Plan, [name]. 07 • [name], [name]. 03 • [name], [name]. 04 • Proposed Section, [name]. 05

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

Although not forming a refusal reason, in its case officer report the Council has raised concerns and policy conflict regarding the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. I have therefore considered this point as a main issue. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on this matter through the appeal process.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] (No.264), with regard to outlook.

The appeal property relates to a two-storey end of terrace dwelling with parking to the front of the site and a garden to the rear. The property benefits from a two-storey rear projection and an existing single storey rear projection structure. Surrounding development comprises mainly terraced dwellings of a similar size and style.

Although not referenced in the refusal reason, the Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which does not constitute planning policy, but is instead guidance to assist in the application of the planning policy, sets out that a single storey rear extension to a terraced house should not exceed 3.5 metres in depth. Whilst the proposed extension would exceed this, single storey rear extensions of a similar depth are common within the immediate vicinity, and the proposed rear building line would sit broadly in line with that of [address] (No.268). In addition, towards the rear of the extension there would be a semi-covered canopy, and the solid wall would be set back and stepped in from the boundary with No. 264. This would reduce the overall bulk and massing of the proposed extension, when viewed from the rear of the site and from No.264.

The proposed single storey extension would have a flat roof on the side closest to No.268 and reduce in height to a lean-to roof on the side closest to No.264. The reduction in height to approximately 2.5 metres would reduce the bulk and massing of the proposed extension and ensure subservience to the main dwelling. Views from the street scene would be limited given the extensions positioning primarily to the rear of the property.

For the reasons set out above, although the scheme would not comply with the guidance set out in the SPD, I do not find there to be harm in this regard. A departure from the guidance within the SPD is therefore justified in this case.

Overall, for the reasons set out, the scheme would be in keeping with surrounding development. It would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (RLP). Collectively, amongst other things, these polices seek to ensure high quality design that complements the character of an existing building and area.

No.264 benefits from an existing single storey rear projection which is positioned on the shared boundary with [address]. Based on the evidence before me, I cannot be sure what room is located in the rear projection. Although there are no windows on the side of the projection facing the appeal site, there is a glass door. At present this glass door would have views out onto the existing rear projection structure at the appeal site. In this regard, the outlook from this glass door would be relatively similar to that at present, if the appeal were to be allowed.

There is also what appears to be glass sliding doors and a small window on the main rear elevation of No.264. Whilst the proposed extension would be visible from these doors and window, at present the existing projection structure, which is built to the shared boundary, would also be visible. I accept that the proposed extension would be of a greater depth, however the semi-covered canopy would reduce the bulk and mass of the extension when viewed from the window and doors on the rear of No.264. Additionally, the overall height of the extension and the lean-to roof would further reduce the effect on outlook from this property. Given the above, the scheme would ensure acceptable outlook from the doors and windows would be maintained. As the extension would be single storey, the outlook from first floor windows of No.264 would not be harmed by the proposal.

Overall, for the reasons set out, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No.264, with regard to outlook. The scheme would be in accordance with Policies LP26 and LP30 in this regard. Collectively, amongst other things, these polices seek to ensure high quality design that maintains acceptable outlook from neighbouring properties.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also used a condition to ensure that the materials to be used match those on the existing building, as indicated on the proposed plans, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.