Single storey ground floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 March 2019 by K Ford MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/18/3219033 19 Babbacombe Gardens, Ilford IG4 5LZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Asher Qureshi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref 3735/18, dated 10 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 November 2018. • The development proposed is single storey ground floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey ground floor rear extension at 19 Babbacombe Gardens, Ilford IG4 5LZ in accordance with the terms of application ref 3735/18, dated 10 September 2018 subject to the following conditions. 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this Decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans 18-505-P15, 18-505-P16, 18-505-P17, 18- 505-P18, 18-505-P19. 3. 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a 2 storey end of terrace property in a residential area where properties in the immediate vicinity of the site share a common building line and have large rear gardens. The dwelling has a single storey rear extension measuring some 3 metres depth and a part first floor extension. From my observations on site both single storey and 2 storey extensions appear common place along the road. The neighbouring property No 17 has a single storey extension of similar depth to the appeal site. No 21, separated from No 19 by a narrow access track has a 2 storey and single storey extension, the Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/18/3219033 2 single storey element of which projects some distance beyond the rear elevation of No 19. 4. The proposed extension would add around 2.67 metres to the existing single storey rear extension and would be some 3 metres in height to the eaves with a flat roof. A parapet wall would stand slightly above this. Whether assessed independently or as part of the existing extension, the overall depth, height and massing of the single storey rear extension would not be so significant as to dominate the rear of the property. It would appear subordinate given the overall size of the dwelling and the size of the garden area to the rear of the house. 5. Irrespective of the development at No 21, which the Council says is unlawful, whilst the extension would be longer than other single storey extensions found elsewhere in the road, it would not be sufficiently disproportionate to harm the character or appearance of the area. 6. The proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and as such would not conflict with the parts of Policy LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (Local Plan) which seeks to ensure new development respects the local character of the area and makes a positive architectural and urban design contribution to its context and location, is well integrated and has regard to and respects the surrounding area in terms of layout, form, massing and scale. The development would also adhere to the part of Policy LP30 of the Local Plan which requires new extensions to complement the character of the building and be subordinate to the existing building in terms of size, scale and height. Conclusion and Planning Conditions 7. For the reasons identified and having regard to all other matters, the appeal is allowed subject to necessary planning conditions. 8. In attaching conditions I am mindful of paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that they should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in other respects. 9. In addition to the standard 3 year time limitation for commencement, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. A condition regarding materials is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area. K Ford INSPECTOR