Single storey rear extension, Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 January 2026 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001747 19 Arlington Road, Woodford Green, Redbridge IG8 9DE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Mitan Mistry against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref is 2524/25. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension, Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Subject to limitations and conditions, Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO) grants planning permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse. If a proposed enlargement would exceed the limits in Paragraph A.1(f) but falls within those in Paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, Paragraph A.4(5) provides that the local planning authority should notify each adjoining owner or occupier. Where any objections are received, Paragraph A.4(7) stipulates that the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises. In this instance, objections from adjoining premises have been received. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 17 Arlington Road, with particular reference to outlook and light. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey terraced house located within a residential area. A number of properties on this side of Arlington Road have been altered and have single storey rear projections. 5. I note the proposal’s flat roof design and relatively low height of 2.7 metres. However, as the proposal would be built right to the shared boundary with 17 Arlington Road (No 17) its significant depth has the potential to impact both the outlook and level of light for occupiers of this property. 6. No 17 has glazed doors on its rear elevation which appear to supply a habitable room. Given that the doors are only a short distance from the shared boundary, Appeal Decision 6001747 2 the extension would be highly visible from within the room. It would project along the shared boundary with a uniform height wall of 6 metres depth. I note the presence of a large bush within No 17’s garden adjacent to the shared boundary. However, this would not provide complete visual screening of the extension, which would have a looming presence when viewed through the glazed doors and also when viewed from the garden area immediately outside No 17’s rear elevation. Whilst the proposal would have a green/sedum roof, this would not mitigate its visual presence when viewed from No 17. 7. The combined depth and proximity of the proposed rear extension to the neighbouring property’s glazed doors would mean that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of a sense of enclosure, and thus a loss of outlook. 8. I have no substantive evidence from either party to quantify the impact of the proposal with regard to light levels. However, it seems to me, that as the extension is located to the north of No 17, for much of the day sunlight would enter the neighbouring property’s garden before the appeal site. Consequently, the proposal would have a limited effect on the level of sunlight received within No 17. The proposal’s flat roof design, and relatively low height would also limit its effect on daylight for the occupiers of No 17, and I do not consider that it would have a harmful effect in this regard. 9. The appellant has brought to my attention that as the site benefits from permitted development rights, potential works could include a three metre rear extension. The appellant indicates that this forms a fallback position. However, it seems to me, that these permitted development works would be less harmful than the proposal before me which would have a depth of six metres. Therefore, while it may be a possibility that the works could go ahead, given that they would be less harmful than the proposal, I give minor weight to the fallback position. 10. My attention has been drawn to the rear extension at 21 Arlington Road. I have not been provided with information as to whether the circumstances in that case were the same as the case before me. Therefore, I am not satisfied the case is directly comparable to the case before me. Notwithstanding this, each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal. 11. Whilst I have found that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on daylight and sunlight for neighbouring occupiers, I conclude that it would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of 17 Arlington Road, with particular reference to outlook. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I consider that prior approval should not be granted, and the appeal should be dismissed. B Pattison INSPECTOR