Raised patio and rear canopy

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2025 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001195 909 Longbridge Road, Dagenham RM8 2BU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Christopher Lalu against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. • The application Ref is 25/00862/HSE. • The development proposed is a raised patio and rear canopy. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a raised patio and rear canopy, at 909 Longbridge Road, Dagenham RM8 2BU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00862/HSE, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted is as shown on the approved plans reference Existing Ground Floor Plan D02; Existing Roof Plan D04; Existing Elevations D06 and Existing Elevations D07. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters and Main Issue 3. The appeal seeks retrospective planning permission, effectively retaining the development shown on the submitted plans which accurately reflect the scheme on site. The appeal form uses the description on the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the same on the application form, which I have used, accurately describes the development to which the appeal relates. I have excluded the term ‘retrospective application’ as this does not constitute a form of development. In addition, the Council does not object to the raised patio. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focuses on the canopy element and specifically the main issue which is its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 911 Longridge Road (No. 911) with specific regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The adjoining property, No. 911, appears to have a single-storey rear extension with two rooflights, rear door, and large rear window. These elements sit close to the protruding solid wall of the appeal site’s existing rear extension and the shared timber boundary fence. The timber fencing above the raised patio does not Appeal Decision 6001195 2 materially exceed the height of the previous boundary treatment. As a result, it does not significantly alter the established relationship between the properties. 5. The canopy is formed of timber posts and transparent polycarbonate roof sheets. Whilst not typical of the dwelling or the area, the use of transparent materials reduces the perception of bulk and introduces a lighter, more open quality. As a result, the structure does not appear unduly dominant or overbearing. Neither the raised patio nor the canopy lead to an unacceptable loss of outlook for the occupiers of No. 911, who are still be able to access a garden of reasonable size with a largely unaffected open aspect. 6. Accordingly, the development does not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook. It would therefore comply with Policy D4 of The London Plan, the Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2021), Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan (2024) and guidance contained in The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (2012). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development considers the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Condition 7. The development is already complete and given my findings above, planning permission is granted in accordance with the plans submitted and no further conditions are necessary in this instance. Conclusion and Recommendation 8. The appeal scheme would comply with the development plan for the reasons I have set out and there is nothing to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is allowed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 9. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the condition stated. John Morrison INSPECTOR