Roof alteration from flat roof to pitched roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 March 2026 by SJ Desai BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003776 1 Stonehall Avenue, Cranbrook, Ilford, Redbridge IG1 3SH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Amir Sadiq against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref is 2830/25. • The development proposed is roof alteration from flat roof to pitched roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for roof alteration from flat roof to pitched roof at 1 Stonehall Avenue, Cranbrook, Ilford, Redbridge IG1 3SH in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2830/25 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 250901 L 004, 250901 L 006. 3) 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 124 (No.124) and 126 (No.126) Wanstead Lane, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a two-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within an established residential area largely characterised by closely spaced semi-detached properties with relatively modest rear gardens. The dwelling has previously been extended by way of a two-storey side and rear extension with a flat roof, a rear dormer extension and single storey rear extension. 4. The southern boundary of the appeal site adjoins the rear gardens of No.124 and No.126 Wanstead Lane, such that the side elevation of the appeal dwelling forms part of the outlook from the rear elevation of these neighbouring properties. Both neighbouring properties contain rear dormer extensions, as well as single storey rear extensions and outbuildings within their gardens. Appeal Decision 6003776 2 5. The proposal seeks to replace the existing flat roof above the two-storey side and rear extension. A gable-ended roof would be introduced over the two-storey side extension, set down slightly from the ridge of the main dwelling. A pitched roof would be provided over the two-storey rear extension, sloping away from the southern boundary with the neighbouring properties. The roofs and wall would be finished in materials to match those of the host dwelling. 6. The proposal would introduce additional built form above the existing flat roofs. However, when viewed from neighbouring properties, much of the additional gable roof form would sit within the envelope of development already established by the existing side elevation and rear dormer of the appeal dwelling. Furthermore, the sloping roof form above the two-storey rear extension would reduce the perceived additional bulk and mass. 7. Given the relatively shallow retained area of rear gardens, the additional massing would be readily visible from the rear-facing windows and gardens of No.124 and, to a lesser extent, No.126. However, visibility of development does not in itself equate to harm. In this case, those views are already influenced by the presence of the existing dwelling and its extensions. When considering the relatively modest increase in mass together with the appreciable retained separation distances between the buildings, the proposal would not appear unduly dominant or overbearing when viewed from these neighbouring properties. 8. Moreover, a reasonable degree of open aspect would remain perceptible from No.124 and No.126 above and to either side of the appeal dwelling, such that any sense of enclosure experienced from neighbouring windows and garden areas would not be materially increased to an unacceptable degree. 9. The Council’s evidence indicates a preference for a hipped roof design, consistent with earlier consents at the site. However, I must determine the appeal on the basis of the proposal before me rather than an alternative scheme. For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposed roof form would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 10. The Council’s evidence also refers to potential effects on the occupiers of 122 Wanstead Lane. Having regard to my findings above, and the relationship between the appeal dwelling and that property, including the very limited projection of the proposal across its rear elevation and the retained open aspect from its rear windows and garden, I find that no harm to the living conditions of its occupiers would arise. 11. I conclude that the proposal would not harmfully affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No.124 and No.126, with particular regard to outlook. As such, the proposal would not conflict with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (2018) which amongst other matters, require new development to not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Conditions 12. I have considered the tests of paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance: Use of planning conditions. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary to provide certainty. A condition relating to materials is also reasonable and necessary in the interests of character and appearance. Appeal Decision 6003776 3 Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, the development is compliant with the development plan read as a whole. Having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should therefore be allowed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR