New single storey side extension with pitched roof. 2 No

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 May 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008134 51 Gyllyngdune Gardens, Seven Kings, Redbridge, Ilford IG3 9HJ • 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 Halal Uddin against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref is 0123/26. • The development proposed is “New single storey side extension with pitched roof. 2 No. conservation type rear facing skylight. Conversion of garage and roof space into habitable room. Alteration to fenestration.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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 whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bungalow Estate Conservation Area (BECA). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site is located within the BECA, this part of which is characterised by single-storey detached and semi-detached houses with red tiled roofs and white or cream render elevations. The BECA derives considerable significance from the low heights of buildings set within generous plots, which contributes to the area’s suburban character. Many houses have single-storey side garages and this, together with the wide side gaps between houses and their deep set back from the highway, contributes to the open feel and spacious character from which the BECA derives significance. 5. Many houses along the street, including the appeal property, are distinguished by single chimney stacks, front-gabled bay windows that flank either side of the front door, and a narrow front-gabled front dormer above the front door. These distinctive features contribute to the coherent resemblance and regularity of significance to the BECA. Minor differences in architectural detailing, the scale of bay windows, and the siting of front dormers along the street do not detract from the strong rhythm and predominantly horizontal pattern of development of significance to the BECA. Appeal Decision 6008134 2 6. The host dwelling is a detached single-storey house typical of development in the area, and with a single-storey right side garage with a false pitch roof set far down from, and reflecting the pitch of, the main roof. The host dwelling positively contributes to the BECA due to its low height, distinctive features and the wide first- floor side gap between it and the neighbouring property to the right. 7. Whilst the proposal would use matching materials and be set back from the principal elevation, its height, extending far above the existing side garage to the top of the right chimney stack, would make it appear as a dominant addition to the host dwelling. It would draw the eye, detracting from the host dwelling’s distinctive chimney, bay windows and front dormer, appearing incongruous within the street scene, and harming the coherent resemblance and strong rhythm of significance to the BECA. The height of the proposal’s roof ridge would extend close to the height of the main roof ridge, significantly reducing the first-floor side gap between the host dwelling and the neighbouring property to the right and harming the openness of significance to the BECA. 8. The appellant has argued that there are a number of side extensions along Parkway and one side extension at 40 Gyllyngdune Gardens that are not significantly set down from the main roof ridge. The side extensions along Parkway do not have a comparable visual impact on the character of the BECA as Parkway’s character and appearance is not dominated by single-storey dwellings and is more varied than that of Gyllyngdune Gardens. The side extension at No 40, whilst not set back from the principal elevation, is set further down from the main roof ridge than the proposal, and does not extend to the height of nearby chimney stacks. No 40’s side extension therefore appears more subservient to the existing dwelling, and less prominent in the street scene, than the proposal. Consequently, these examples do not justify the unsympathetic design proposed. 9. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Given my findings above, the proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the BECA. Given the proposal’s modest scale in relation to the BECA, it would result in less than substantial harm to the BECA. 10. The National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset (in this case the BECA) and that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the appeal scheme. I acknowledge that the proposal would provide improved accommodation within the dwelling and would be a more efficient use of space, however these are primarily private benefits. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the existing property is not habitable or that improved accommodation at the appeal site could not be achieved through a less harmful design. Consequently, in heritage terms, the limited public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the BECA identified above. 11. For these reasons, the proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the BECA. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies LP26, LP30 and LP33 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (2018), and the guidance contained within the London Borough of Redbridge Bungalow Estate Conservation Area Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018). Together these seek to ensure that Appeal Decision 6008134 3 development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style and form, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR