Extension to loft including rear dormer. Alterations to roof over two storey side extension. One front rooflight

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: 24 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003488 18 Wensleydale Avenue, Clayhall, Ilford, Redbridge IG5 0NA • 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 G Khan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref is 3008/25. • The development proposed is Extension to loft including rear dormer. Alterations to roof over two storey side extension. One front rooflight. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In the banner heading above I have used the description of development taken from the Council’s decision notice as opposed to the application form, as it more accurately describes the development for which permission is sought. 3. The submitted evidence indicates that planning permission was granted on 26 April 2022 for a part single, part two‑storey rear extension and alterations to fenestration (Council Ref: 0505/22). The Council indicate that this extension may not have been constructed within three years of the date of that planning permission. 4. On 5 September 2024, a lawful development certificate was issued by the Council for a loft conversion incorporating a rear dormer, two front rooflights, and alterations to fenestration (Council Ref: 2170/24). 5. At the time of my site visit in February 2026, both the part single, part two‑storey rear extension and the rear dormer had been constructed. Whilst I acknowledge the Council’s concerns regarding the potential expiry of the 2022 planning permission, I have no substantive evidence before me to indicate that construction works on the rear extension had not commenced prior to April 2025. 6. The description of development for the appeal before me relates to an extension to the existing dormer and alterations to the roof of the two storey extension. Given that much of the existing development on the site lies outside the scope of the works that are the subject of this appeal, and as the appeal is being dismissed in any event, I have not considered this matter further. Appeal Decision 6003488 2 Main Issue 7. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Reasons 8. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling, set back from the public highway behind a car parking area. It is located within a residential street lined by similar semi-detached houses. The property has extensive alterations to its rear which include a two storey rear extension, a single storey rear projection and a large flat roof rear dormer. 9. The proposal would increase the width of the existing dormer on the dwelling’s rear roof plane. This would not be visible in public views from the front of the appeal property. However, given the densely built up nature of the area, it would be visible from a number of surrounding properties on Wensleydale Avenue and Atherton Road. 10. The extension to its width would create an expansive dormer, that would span the full width of the host property’s’ rear roof. The submitted drawings show that the large, flat roof dormer would also span from very close to the eaves to very near to the ridge height, creating a particularly bulky addition which would result in an out of proportion and dominant form of development. Overall, the proposed extension would create a dormer that, due to its size and bulk, would fail to respect the original form and architecture of the building. 11. The Council refer to its Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (SPD). My attention has been drawn to paragraph 3.6.2 of the SPD which outlines that rear dormers should be symmetrically located and be at least 0.5m below the ridge of the roof, 1m above the eaves and set in 1m from shared boundary and from the edge of the roof. The submitted drawings show the enlarged dormer would be very bulky, would fail to respect the original roof form and that the small set in distances from its sides and below the ridge line would exacerbate this. As a result it would appear as a disproportionately sized addition to the roof. 12. Whilst the appellant indicates that the proposed materials would match the host dwelling, this factor would not overcome the harm I have identified as a result of the scale and width of the extended dormer. 13. A number of properties on the street have existing rear dormers. I have not been provided with the full details and facts in relation to any planning permission for the rear dormer at 8 Wensleydale Avenue. From the evidence before me, that dormer incorporates a sloping element which serves to somewhat reduce its overall scale. It therefore differs to the proposal 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. 14. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. I therefore find that it would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018). These policies seek to ensure, amongst other aspects, that all new development is of a high standard of design and respects local character. Appeal Decision 6003488 3 15. As set out above, the dormer design would also conflict with the rear dormer guidance set out within the SPD. Other Matters 16. The development would enhance the appeal property by providing additional living accommodation for its occupiers. In addition, the appellant indicates that the proposal would meet the necessary internal space standards and would not result in the loss of any amenity space. It has also been put to me that the proposal would not harmfully affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and that it would assist in increased property values, resulting in economic growth. Be that as it may, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified. Conclusion 17. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. B Pattison INSPECTOR