Demolition of existing rear conservatories. Erection of lower ground, ground and first floor rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 June 2026 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007925 33 Chapel Road, Epping, Essex CM16 5DS • 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 Ian Bellis against the decision of Epping Forest District Council. • The application Ref is EPF/0124/26. • The development proposed is described as “demolition of existing rear conservatories. Erection of lower ground, ground and first floor rear extensions.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as demolition of existing rear conservatories, erection of lower ground, ground and first floor rear extensions at 33 Chapel Road, Epping, Essex CM16 5DS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref EPF/0124/26 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: 0842 GA00 Rev B (Proposed Ground and Lower Ground Floor Plans), 0482 GA01 Rev B (Proposed First and Roof Plans), 0482 GA04 Rev B (Proposed Elevations Sheet 1), 0482 GA05 Rev B (Proposed Elevations Sheet 2) and 0482 SS00 Rev B (Site Location and Block Plans). 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. Preliminary Matter and Main Issue 3. The Council’s delegated report and the decision notice make it clear that its objection relates solely to the proposed lower ground floor extension. The other elements of the proposal are therefore considered to have an acceptable effect, and I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. Therefore, I have defined the main issue on this basis. Which is the effect of the lower ground floor extension on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is a detached, two-storey dwelling within a generous plot. The surrounding area is characterised by its predominantly Victorian architecture, which Appeal Decision 6007925 2 the appeal property shares, and the steep topography on which the street sits. This means that the rear of the appeal property is read as a three-storey building with a legible basement level. Adjacent the appeal site is a wide driveway leading to a low- rise block of mid-century apartments. I observed on my site visit that the previously open space between the block and the appeal property is being infilled with the development of a detached dwelling. 5. The appeal property has extant conservatories of varying ages at both ground and basement level extending into the rear garden. The boundary between the appeal property and the adjacent extant property is densely verdant, creating an overall private and somewhat enclosed outlook. 6. The proposed development would be situated at the rear of the appeal property and would not be visible from the wider street scene. This position is further strengthened by the ongoing development of the neighbouring plot, which at the time of my site visit, has removed any intervisibility between the appeal site and the public realm. There would be some appreciation of the proposed development in private views from the facing properties and rear gardens, however given the topography of the site and the verdancy of the existing boundaries, these views would be limited and diffused. 7. Regardless, the proposed development would be harmonious with the existing pattern of development. The extension would fill in the current L-plan form of the rear building line and would not protrude further into the rear garden space. Furthermore, it would not extend as far back as the rear building line of the adjacent property. It would represent an increase in the mass and bulk of the host dwelling; however, this does not necessarily equate to harm. 8. The large plot of the appeal property can comfortably accommodate what would be read as a proportionate addition to a house of existing generous scale. The lower ground floor extension would thus be subordinate to the host dwelling and furthermore would be constructed of materials complimentary to the original dwelling, respecting the architectural integrity and prevalent character of the host and the wider area. 9. The proposed development would therefore have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, in line with the requirements of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 Part One (2023) Policies DM9 and DM12. These policies together require development to avoid harm to the appearance or setting of the property or the established character of the surrounding area Other Matters 10. The Council has raised no concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, particularly relating to loss of day/sunlight, noise, view and outlook, and they have further confirmed that the proposed development would not have an effect on the existing parking arrangements for the appeal site. Similarly, there have been no concerns raised by the Environmental Protection and Drainage team regarding any increased risk of flooding or drainage issues. There is no evidence before me to disagree with their conclusions. 11. The potential future conversion of the existing lower ground floor rooms into living accommodation is not the subject of this appeal and as the Council has indicated, Appeal Decision 6007925 3 such works may not require planning permission. Regardless, I can only base my recommendation on the merits of the proposed development before me. 12. The potential future development of any other properties in the area or their conversion into Houses of Multiple Occupation are not matters which I can consider under the remit of this appeal. These hypothetical proposals would be considered on their own merits, if they were to require planning permission. 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. Any use of the flat roof for the creating of a balcony or raised platform would require planning permission. A condition is therefore unnecessary. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend that it 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. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the conditions set out above. John Morrison INSPECTOR