Appeal 6007735

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of rear extensions at ground and first floor level, along with excavation of basement and roof alterations including removal of chimney at [site address] . The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2553/25, dated 18 December 2025, 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: location plan and PL01 (proposed plans and elevations).

Excavation and construction of the basement hereby approved shall not commence until a [name] for these works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The excavation and construction works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved [name].

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal proposal seeks to respond to a previous proposal for similar alterations to No [site address] , which was the subject of a recent unsuccessful appeal1. [name] have considered the proposal before me on its individual merits, I have also had regard to the recent appeal decision.

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling with a lower ground floor garage to the side. It displays a steeply pitched gable roof, with dormer windows to both roof slopes. The surrounding area is residential in character, with detached dwellings of individual design and appearance along [site address] and neighbouring streets.

No [site address] is prominent in views along the eastern side of [site address] , particularly as its steeply pitched roof form and narrow front gable contrasts with the more bulky, squarer built forms of the neighbouring dwellings, Nos 2, 4, 6 and 10, which also largely have shallower pitches to their roof forms.

In the earlier appeal it was found that the design’s scale would be emphasised by a block-like mass, which together with the loss of the locally distinctive mock Tudor detailing, would make it unduly prominent with a harmful effect on local character. The current proposal includes a revised roof design with a lower height, reversion of the garage roof to its original form and alterations to the front elevation, including the window proportions and reinstatement of mock Tudor detailing.

While these changes would substantively alter the appearance of the existing dwelling, they would not be disproportionate in terms of height and additional bulk. More significantly in my view, the wider upper floor and shallower pitched roof would be in keeping with the scale and appearance of the neighbouring properties. The restoration of the mock Tudor detailing would be characteristic of design details in the street scene, as would the use of red brick as well as render, which is a feature of the existing dwelling and properties on the opposite side of the road. As found in the previous appeal, the use of the lower ground floor for living accommodation, providing three clear storeys, is characteristic of neighbouring properties.

Therefore, taking these findings as a whole, I conclude that the proposal would not have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. Consequently, it is not contrary to Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 (2023), which requires all new development to achieve a high quality of design and to contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area.

I have had regard to the representations made by interested parties, which raise a number of other matters in addition to the main issue. The rear extension would be of limited depth at ground floor, with an upper floor setback and a good degree of separation would remain between the neighbouring properties, with no increase in the appeal property’s overall height. As such, it would not be overbearing seen from the neighbouring properties to either side or from the road frontage. 1 APP/J1535/D/25/3368795 dated 12 November 2025. 2

A daylight and sunlight study has been undertaken, which finds that there would be no harmful effects on natural light available to habitable rooms of the neighbouring properties. I have had regard to concerns raised about the study, but it is a proportionate and appropriate assessment for residential development of this scale and, therefore, I accept the findings. The scale drawings provide an appropriate basis to assess the development.

The upper floor windows facing No 10 would both serve bathrooms and, therefore, would include obscured glass. The single upper floor window facing No 6 would be in a similar position to the existing dormer window. Consequently, there would be no harmful loss of privacy as a result of the proposed development. Reference is made to a number of previous proposals where the effect on neighbours’ living conditions had a bearing on the decisions. I have, however, considered the current proposal on its merits and, therefore, these previous decisions do not have a direct bearing on the current appeal.

The change to the amount of planting to the front of the property is not sufficient to result in a harmful effect on biodiversity. From my own observations and due to the lack of objection from the Highway Authority, there is no basis to find that visibility from the driveway would be compromised by the position of the new hedge. The additional hardstanding would not be so significant to result in harmful effects to surface water management. More generally, there is no evidential basis to find that residential development of this scale will have a harmful effect on drainage.

Reference is made to subsidence affecting neighbouring properties. Given that a basement forms part of the proposal, I consider for the avoidance of doubt that it is necessary to require by condition a [name] for the basement works to be submitted and approved.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should succeed. I have imposed the standard time condition and, to ensure the proper implementation of the proposal, one requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.