For a single storey front extension to create porch and canopy over front bay window. Alterations to roof over porch/canopy

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 February 2026 by S. Burch BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001898 43 Dudley Road, Ilford, Redbridge IG1 1ET • 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 Mr Naeem Hashmi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref is 2279/25. • The development proposed is for a single storey front extension to create porch and canopy over front bay window. Alterations to roof over porch/canopy. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey front extension to create porch and canopy over front bay window. Alterations to roof over porch/canopy at 43 Dudley Road, Ilford, Redbridge IG1 1ET in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2279/25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Existing & proposed block plans and site location plan, Drg No. 2576-PL03 • Proposed ground floor and roof plan, Drg No. 2576-PL01 • Proposed elevations, Drg No. 2576-PL02 2) 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. Preliminary Matters 2. For reasons of precision, I have taken the description of development used in the heading above and in my formal decision from the Council’s decision notice. This description is also used in the appellant’s statement of case. 3. On my site visit and from the evidence before me, it is evident that construction is already underway. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property relates to an end of terrace dwelling. The surrounding area is mainly residential in character, with dwellings of a similar size and style. Most Appeal Decision 6001898 2 properties along the road benefit from a front bay window. Front porches are also a common feature within the locality, with some variation in design evident. 6. The Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) outlines how where a bay window exists, a porch must not extend beyond the depth of the bay and needs to have a separation of at least 0.3 metres from the bay. The porch would not maintain this separation and would be of an increased width, extending out to the side boundary. However, the separation would be similar to that between the previous porch, which this application seeks to replace, and the bay window. Additionally, there are porches of varying sizes and styles within the area, many of which do not maintain a separation between the bay window and are instead joined to form one front projection. The increased width would be proportionate and relate well to the end of terrace property. Additionally, given the variation within the area, it would not appear incongruous or out of keeping with surrounding development in this regard. 7. The porch would project slightly beyond the depth of the bay window, contrary to the SPD guidance. However, the bay window would remain clearly visible and continue to read as an original architectural element of the property. The two features would sit together harmoniously, and the slight projection would not visually dominate or detract from the legibility of the bay window. Accordingly, for the reasons set out, a departure from the guidance within the SPD is justified in this case. 8. The Council raises concerns regarding the flat roof over the porch and bay window. However, the proposed plans show that a pitched roof would sit over the bay window and part of the front porch. The previous porch similarly comprised a pitched roof, and the roof form would be similar to others within the surrounding area, albeit of an increased depth and width. Whilst a flat roof element would be used towards the outer edge of the porch, close to the shared boundary, this would be similar to the roof of the store, as shown on the pre-existing plans. 9. Overall, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. The scheme would therefore be in accordance with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that extensions are of high- quality design and complement the character of the existing building and the surrounding area. Conditions 10. I have used a condition to specify the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of certainty. A condition to control the external materials of the development is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. I have not attached the standard time limit condition, as the development has already commenced. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed. S.Burch- INSPECTOR