Erection of a two-storey rear side extension, together with full internal remodelling of the existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005666 8 High Road, Loughton, Essex IG10 4QZ • 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 Wadud Ruf against the decision of Epping Forest District Council. • The application Ref is EPF/1967/25. • The development proposed is the erection of a two-storey rear side extension, together with full internal remodelling of the existing dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two- storey rear side extension, together with full internal remodelling of the existing dwelling at 8 High Road, Loughton, Essex IG10 4QZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref EPF/1967/25, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s: 01 (existing and proposed block plan), 02 (existing and proposed site location plan) and 04 (proposed plans, elevations, and sections). 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on the significance of the appeal dwelling as a locally listed building. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site is set back from the highway in an elevated position. The dwelling forms half of a pair of semi-detached houses dating from the mid-C19 and which forms part of the historic development of Loughton. The building is rendered white, with a typical, symmetrical front elevation featuring a central doorway and porch with flat pediment. This is flanked by two canted bay windows to the ground floor Appeal Decision 6005666 2 with sash windows above. The bay windows and porch are thought to be later additions to the frontage. The pair have an overall pleasantly symmetrical appearance, although some variances exist due to alterations undertaken over the years. The appeal site is largely hidden from public view, due to its setback and elevated position and concealment by thick mature trees lining the boundary with the highway, although some glimpses of the principal elevation are possible. 5. The appeal property retains its historic plan form, consisting of the Georgian style dwelling house, and attached one-and-half storey ancillary range lying perpendicular at the rear. This range was likely connected to a since lost service building, which would have enclosed the small surviving rear courtyard. The yard is now enclosed with a later red brick building of a similar footprint dating to the early C-21. 6. The Council have confirmed that it considers the appeal dwelling to be a non- designated heritage asset (NDHA) of low significance. As a remnant of an early phase of Loughton’s development, I agree that the appeal dwelling warrants NDHA status. Paragraph 216 of the Framework requires that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the appeal. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 7. The proposed development would be concentrated at the rear of the appeal site, and thus not appreciated in views of the site from the public realm. There would be no discernible changes made to the principal elevation, which would overall preserve the symmetry of the appeal property and its attached pair. Similarly, the introduction of a crown roof would be an untraditional inclusion at this location. Notwithstanding this, the elevated position that the appeal site occupies would effectively conceal the crown roof from all public vantage points. 8. Whilst it would be less pronounced, the overall U-plan of the built form and the historic courtyard would be retained and remain legible following the development. Whilst I accept that the proposed development would alter the hierarchical nature of the appeal site and incorporate the low-status rear structures into the main dwelling house, this level of change is appropriate for an NDHA deemed to be of low significance. The retention of the plan form would continue to demonstrate the functional relationship between the differing elements of the site. 9. The design of the proposed development represents a carefully considered scheme which responds well to the host dwelling. The chosen materials palette would allow for seamless integration of the new development into the existing site and assimilate with its character and appearance. 10. The loss of historic fabric is regrettable, but minor, and it is clear that the architectural and historic value of the site as an NDHA is concentrated in its principal elevation and its historic plan form. These elements of the site would be preserved, as would the overall character and appearance of the building. 11. The proposed development would therefore have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the NDHA. It therefore complies with Policy DM7 and DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan Part One 2011- 2033 (2023) which together require all development to achieve a high quality of design and respect the period and detailing of the original buildings and for any Appeal Decision 6005666 3 harm or loss to the significance of an NDHA to be mitigated through the retention of features of significance and good design. Other Matters 12. The Council have referred to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990) and whether the proposal would meet the objective of having special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting. However, this objective relates to designated heritage assets, which the appeal site is not. Conditions 13. Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the NDHA, a condition relating to matching materials is also necessary. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. E Clifford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. B Plenty INSPECTOR