Appeal 6003648

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension to 15 [site address] adjoining a first floor rear extension to 13 [site address] , at [site address] [site address] , [address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application reference 0804/25, subject to the following

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: • Drawing no. GA 1000 – Existing ground floor plan, dated March 2025 • Drawing no. GA 1001 – Existing first floor plan, dated March 2025 • Drawing no. GA 1002 – Proposed first floor plan, dated March 2025 • Drawing no. GA 1003 – Existing & proposed loft layout plan, dated March 2025 • Drawing no. GA 1004 – Existing roof plan, dated March 2025 • Drawing no. GA 1005 – Proposed roof plan, dated March 2025 • Drawing no. GA 1006 – Existing & proposed rear elevation A, dated March 2025 • Drawing no. GA 1007 – Existing & proposed side elevations B & C, dated March 2025 • Drawing no. GA 1008 – Existing & proposed block plan, dated March 2025

The external materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall accord with the specification stated in the planning application form and approved plans submitted with the application.

I have amended the description of development to remove terms that do not constitute an act of development. I am satisfied that the amended description is an accurate description of the development sought, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [site address] [site address] and the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached pair of houses on a residential street. The street has different housing typologies including terraced sections and detached houses. The majority of houses on the street include front garden spaces, many of which have been paved over to accommodate off-street parking. While the rooflines on the front elevation of the street are relatively uniform and unaltered, on my site visit I saw evidence of a variety of roof alterations on the rear elevations along the street, as well as evidence of other rear extensions.

The two appeal properties have been altered previously, with existing rear extensions and roof alterations evident on my site visit.

The proposal involves identical first floor rear extensions of both properties. The proposed extensions would be the full width of the rear elevation and approximately 3.5 metres (m) in depth.

The London Borough of Redbridge Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (the [name]) provides guidance on first floor extensions, including indicative maximum measurements for their depth (generally 3m) and width (generally no more than half the width of the original rear elevation).

While the depth of the extensions would exceed the 3m depth in the [name], it would be the same depth as the existing ground floor extensions. As the extensions would cover the full width of the respective host properties, this would serve to increase the massing effect of the proposal. However, they would still read as subordinate to the respective host properties, and therefore the additional massing would be proportionate and not overly dominant. As a result, there would be no adverse impacts on the character and appearance of [site address] [site address] .

There are a variety of different housing typologies and alterations to properties along [site address] , especially at the rear elevations. This means that the street lacks a uniform character, which, coupled with the fact that the proposal would not be visible from the front elevation, means that the proposal would not be an incongruous addition in terms of the wider character and appearance of the area.

In conclusion, the proposal would accord with Policy LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (March 2018) (the Local Plan) which, amongst other things, seeks high quality design that respects the local character of the area, and is well integrated and has regard to and respect for the surrounding area, in terms of layout, form, style, massing, scale, density, orientation, materials, and design. The proposal would also accord with Policy LP30 of the Local Plan which supports household extensions that, amongst other things, are subordinate to the existing building in terms of size, scale or height and maintains or improves the appearance of the locality or street scene.

Although the proposal would not precisely conform to standards on the depth and width of extensions set out in the [name], these standards should not be applied mechanistically. The proposal would accord with the overall intentions of this document as it would ensure that the extensions do not dominate the host or original property or project too far into the garden from the original rear wall of the house, to avoid the extension being overbearing and causing a significant loss of outlook, light, or an increased sense of enclosure.

It would also accord with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework), which, amongst other things, states that developments should ensure they are sympathetic to local character while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change.

The proposal involves identical extensions for adjacent properties as part of a joint application. It is possible that, if permitted, the proposal may only be partially implemented, for example only one of the proposed extensions could be developed. As the proposal is submitted as a joint scheme, there is no evidence to suggest that it would not be implemented in its entirety, and I do not consider additional mechanisms would be necessary to secure this. In any event, the use of a planning condition to require full implementation would not meet the relevant tests.

In the event that only one extension was developed, there would likely be some loss of outlook and light to a bedroom at the relevant unaltered property, and an increased sense of enclosure in a situation where no. 15 was extended, by virtue of the existing first floor extension to no. 13. However, I am not persuaded that such impacts would be demonstrably adverse and conflict with Policy LP26 of the Local Plan, and the [name], insofar as these documents relate to the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Concerns have been raised regarding the effect on the living conditions of the existing occupiers of 17 [site address] . However, the proposal would retain a reasonable separation distance to this property and would not result in adverse impacts on habitable rooms in relation to loss of daylight, visual impacts, and an increased sense of enclosure.

A fallback position has been put forward concerning use of Permitted Development rights. However, as the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm, there is no cause to consider it further.

The standard commencement condition, a plans condition and a materials condition are imposed to provide certainty and to ensure that the appearance of the development is appropriate. I have inserted the plan titles into the Council’s suggested plans condition in the interests of precision, for the avoidance of any doubt on which plans are approved. I have removed tailpiece wording from the Council’s suggested materials condition as this could potentially allow changes to be made to the development without proper scrutiny, and therefore it is not reasonable.

The proposal would be in accordance with the Development Plan as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions.