Ground and first floor side/rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 February 2026 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002984 18 Purleigh Avenue, Woodford Green, Redbridge IG8 8DU • 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 N Ferdous against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref is 2307/25. • The development proposed is Ground and first floor side/rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 16 and 20 Purleigh Avenue (No 16 and 20) with particular regard to the effect on privacy, daylight and sunlight and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a two storey semi‑detached dwelling, set back from the public highway behind a car parking frontage. Despite small variations to the front and rear elevations as a result of incremental changes over time, the neighbouring dwellings on this side of the street are similar in design, displaying a consistent pattern of windows and wide, hipped‑roof, front ground floor projections. Appeal Decision 6002984 2 5. The siting of dwellings within their plots is also consistent. In particular, the side elevations of dwellings within each pair of semi‑detached properties are set back by at least one metre from the side boundaries, allowing side access to their rear gardens. The properties surrounding the appeal site follow the curve of the road. As a result No 16 is set further to the rear than the appeal property. This arrangement, combined with the set back of both properties from the shared boundary, creates a sense of spaciousness and allows views from the public highway to dwellings on Chigwell Road to the rear of the appeal site. 6. The proposed two storey side extension would be constructed up to the side boundary with No 16. This would enclose the open space adjacent to the neighbouring property, noticeably reducing the sense of openness between the properties. From certain viewpoints along Purleigh Avenue, the two dwellings would appear uncharacteristically close together. While there are terraced properties on the opposite side of Purleigh Avenue, this part of the street is characterised by a fairly uniform pattern of semi‑detached dwellings. As a result, the side extension would be at odds with the character of this section of the street, where gaps between pairs of semis are a notable feature. 7. The Council refers to its Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (SPD) in relation to the side extension. My attention has been drawn to paragraphs 3.5.1 and 3.5.5, which advise that the ridge of a two storey side extension should be set down by 0.5 metres from the main ridge of the dwelling, and that the first floor element should be set back by at least 0.5 metres from the front elevation. 8. While I acknowledge that the SPD provides guidance rather than policy, the extension’s only marginally lower ridge height and the absence of a set‑back at first floor level would contribute to a lack of subordination to the host dwelling, resulting in an overly dominant addition. 9. The first floor rear extension would not comply with the SPD guidance, which indicates that such extensions should be no more than half the width of the host dwelling. Although the extension would not be visible in the public realm and would have a generous separation from the boundary with No 20, its projection up to the side boundary with No 16 would be uncharacteristic and would cause it to appear bulky and ungainly. The inclusion of a Juliet balcony would not be unusual in a residential area such as this and would not, in itself, harm the character of the area. 10. My attention has been drawn to the extension at 2 Stanford Close. However, that property relates differently to neighbouring buildings and site boundaries. This is because it is a corner property and does not have an immediate neighbour to its right hand side when viewed from the highway. Furthermore, its two storey side projection maintains a comfortable set back from the side boundary, unlike the appeal proposal. In any event, each scheme must be assessed on its individual merits, and my conclusions are based on the specific circumstances of the appeal proposal. 11. The rear of the appeal site adjoins the Woodford Bridge Conservation Area (CA). The character and significance of the CA derive, amongst other factors, from the historic layout of buildings around the two greens within the CA, illustrating the area’s development from an Anglo‑Saxon settlement to an outer London suburb. Appeal Decision 6002984 3 Due to local topography, the appeal site lies noticeably lower than properties on Chigwell Road within the CA. As a result, it has very limited visibility in views from within the CA and I find that the proposal would have a neutral effect on the setting of the Conservation Area. 12. Nevertheless, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (LP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). These policies seek to ensure that development responds positively to local character and makes a positive architectural and urban design contribution to its context. The proposal would also conflict with the aims of the Framework, which require development to be sympathetic to local character and history. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers 13. Due to the staggered layout of properties along Purleigh Avenue, the rear elevation of No 16 is set significantly further back within its plot than the appeal property. Consequently, the proposed two storey side and rear extension would not project beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring dwelling. 14. However, the submitted evidence indicates that windows in No 16 facing the appeal site serve a kitchen, hall, and landing. While the hall and landing are not habitable rooms, the proposed two storey side and rear extension would be constructed directly on the shared boundary with No 16. As a result, its height and depth have the potential to adversely affect both outlook and levels of light for occupiers of the neighbouring property. 15. Given that these windows are located a short distance from the shared boundary, the extension would be highly visible from within the neighbouring property. The proposal would replace the existing boundary treatment, which is approximately 1.8 metres high, with a brick elevation up to two storeys in height and without any softening features. Consequently, the extension would have a looming and overbearing presence when viewed from within the neighbouring property. The combined depth, height, and proximity of the proposed development would therefore result in an adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No 16, through an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook. 16. In addition, an extension of this depth and height, with limited separation from No. 16, would overshadow the neighbouring property during the late afternoon, and potentially for longer periods during the winter months. Overall, I find that the proposal would result in a substantial reduction in daylight and sunlight reaching the neighbouring accommodation. 17. The appellant has drawn my attention to the fact that the site benefits from permitted development rights, indicating this as a potential fallback position. This could include the erection of higher boundary treatments along the boundary with No 16. While no detailed evidence has been provided in this regard, it appears to me that such permitted development works would be less harmful than the proposed two storey extension constructed up to the shared boundary. Therefore, as these works would be less harmful than the appeal proposal, I afford this limited weight. 18. The appeal property’s existing first-floor rear windows face towards the rear of its garden, though they allow angled views towards the rear gardens of No 16 and 20. Appeal Decision 6002984 4 These properties already experience a degree of mutual overlooking between dwellings and garden areas, which is typical within a residential environment such as this. 19. While a number of first floor side facing windows would face towards No 16, had the proposal been acceptable in other respects, these could have been secured as obscurely glazed through the use of a planning condition. Consequently, the scheme would not result in a harmful loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers of No 16. 20. The nearest first floor rear window to No 20 would serve an en-suite and would likely be obscurely glazed. The windows associated with the Juliet balcony would be positioned centrally within the rear elevation and some distance from the shared boundary. As a result, any views would be angled towards the rear of neighbouring gardens, and I do not find that the proposal would result in a harmful loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers. 21. The proposed first floor rear extension would be set away from the shared boundary with No 20 and would incorporate a relatively shallow hipped roof, limiting its overall bulk. As a result, although the extension would be more visually apparent than the existing situation, it would not harmfully affect views from No 20’s rear facing windows or garden, nor would it be overly oppressive or significantly detract from the neighbouring occupiers’ outlook. 22. However, as I have found that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers at No 16, it fails to comply with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the LP. Amongst other requirements, the policy seeks to ensure that development does not give rise to adverse impacts on neighbouring occupiers in relation to outlook, daylight, sunlight, and privacy. Other Matters 23. A number of concerns from third parties have been raised in relation to the development. These include concerns related to construction and fire safety. However, given my conclusions on the main issues and that the appeal is dismissed, there is no need for me to address these in further detail. 24. It has been put to me that under the powers under s79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) a ‘split’ decision could be issued. However, it seems to me that the two parts of the proposal are not clearly severable, both physically and functionally. This is because the ground floor extension is physically linked to the first floor extension. I have not been provided with any drawings demonstrating how the two elements could be separated. In the absence of such evidence, I have therefore not issued a split decision. 25. The proposal would provide economic benefits through the creation of jobs over the short-term and associated local expenditure. Be that as it may, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified. Conclusion 26. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and the living condition of neighbouring occupiers. For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Decision 6002984 5 B Pattison INSPECTOR