Single storey rear extension and a first floor rear extension together with installation of side windows at first floor level

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 July 2026 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009967 6 Norton Close, Chingford, London E4 8LS • 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 Fuat Altun against the decision of the London Borough of Waltham Forest Council. • The application reference is 260359. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension and a first floor rear extension together with installation of side windows at first floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension and a first floor rear extension together with installation of side windows at first floor level at 6 Norton Close, Chingford, London in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 260359, and the plans submitted with it, 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 the following approved plans: Location Plan, Block Plan and drawing 001. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The council’s concern relates only to the first-floor extension, describing that it would result in a substantial and visually assertive addition that would disrupt the established flat rear building line/façade and the consistent form of the host dwelling resulting in a prominent new projection that would not be characteristic of the area. The council also considered that the use of brick to the rear elevation, rather than cladding, would be out of keeping. 4. The rear of the property is not clearly visible from the public realm and the gap between the properties is limited to the extent that the works would be barely discernible when looking from Norton Close. The design has been carefully considered to prevent a significant impact on the outlook from the rear facing Appeal Decision: 6009967 2 windows of the attached property; and from the windows of the detached neighbour. As these properties are of a simple design, with a pitched roof, the proposed first-floor element would respect this form, having a pitched roof that hips into the main rear facing roof slope. Whilst it would add a new element to the rear, it would be of suitable proportions and design. The simple form of the rear of these properties is not a defining characteristic of the area. The extension would not dominate the scale of the dwelling overall and it would not detract from the appearance of the house; or be clearly evident in the wider area. 5. The property is built in brick with cladding at first-floor level to the front and rear. The side of the proposal would continue in brick to match. The rear elevation would also be in brick. Whilst it would be possible to clad the first-floor rear facing elevation and gable, the use of matching brickwork would be equally appropriate in design terms. 6. Generally, the proposal would be relatively subservient to the scale of the dwelling; it would be of an appropriate design; and it would have no significant impact on the wider character or appearance of the area. It would not therefore conflict with Policy 53 of the adopted Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 (2024) as it would respond appropriately to the context in terms of scale, height, massing and materials. It would also satisfy the design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework. 7. The council’s report lists two supplementary planning documents but does not make reference to them in the assessment or the decision notice. Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010) provides an example of a ‘good two storey rear extension’ that has similar characteristics to this proposal. The proposed extension also appears to satisfy the guidance with regard to depth and distance from neighbouring windows. I have similarly found no conflict with the design expectations set out in the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (2010). 8. In conclusion, the first floor extension would be of a suitable design and would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The ground floor extension and the proposed windows would also be acceptable additions. As there are no matters that weigh significantly against the proposal, I allow the appeal. 9. I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development and the details of the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. The application form sets out that the materials would match the existing. A condition has been imposed to require this, to ensure that the development would have a satisfactory appearance. 10. The council have referred to the potential use of the flat roof of the ground floor extension as a balcony or terrace. It is suggested in their report that a condition would have been imposed to prevent such a use. The drawings show a balustrade outside the glazed doors to form a Juliet balcony. This would prevent access to the roof outside. Given this detail, I am not satisfied that a condition is necessary. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR