Construction of a single storey rear extension with a raised roof lantern

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2026 by SJ Desai BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011080 41 Empress Avenue, Chingford, Waltham Forest E4 8SR • 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 Mab Ayyub against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application Ref is 260774. • The development proposed is construction of a single storey rear extension with a raised roof lantern. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a single storey rear extension with a raised roof lantern at 41 Empress Avenue, Chingford, Waltham Forest E4 8SR in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 260774 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: B-003, BREG-0007, BREG-0008, BREG-0009, BREG-0010, BREG-0011 and Fire Safety Strategy Statement. 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. Preliminary Matter 2. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the Council’s description of the development proposed detailed on the decision notice, which I have used in the bullet header above, as it more accurately describes the development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 39 (No.39) and 43 (No.43) Empress Avenue, particularly in terms of outlook. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling on the southern side of Empress Avenue, within a predominantly residential area characterised by terraced properties of a similar scale and form. A single-storey timber projection of limited width extends from its rear elevation. Along the shared boundary with No.39, close Appeal Decision 6011080 2 to the rear elevations, the boundary treatment comprises a masonry wall surmounted by an upstanding brick parapet. A single-storey structure is also attached to the rear of No.39, adjacent to the shared boundary. By contrast, No.43 appears to remain broadly unaltered from its original form. The rear gardens and patio areas within this part of the terrace are raised. 5. The proposal would provide a single-storey extension across the rear of the appeal dwelling. It would project about 4 metres beyond the rear wall, extend across a width of about 5.2 metres and have a flat-roof height of about 2.6 metres, rising to about 2.88 metres at the raised roof lantern. The roof lantern would be positioned away from the site boundaries. 6. The proposal would introduce built form alongside both shared boundaries, where the outlook from Nos.39 and 43 is presently more open above the existing boundary treatment. Given the relatively narrow plots and the terraced form of development, I accept that the extension would be apparent from the rear-facing rooms and garden areas of both adjoining properties. 7. The flank walls and principal roof would rise above the height of a typical domestic boundary fence. However, at approximately 2.6 metres, the main roof would remain relatively modest in height. The raised roof lantern would be positioned centrally and set in from the boundaries and would not materially increase the perceived height or bulk of the extension when viewed from either neighbouring property. Although the extension would occupy an appreciable length of each shared boundary, its limited height, flat-roofed form and recessed roof lantern would limit its visual and enclosing effects. 8. The effect upon No.39 would be moderated further by the existing masonry boundary wall and upstanding brick parapet, together with the single-storey structure attached to the rear of that dwelling adjacent to the shared boundary. Irrespective of the planning status or permanence of that structure, it forms part of the existing physical context. The proposal would therefore not introduce built form into an otherwise wholly open boundary relationship and would not result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure. 9. In relation to No.43, I recognise that the extension would introduce a solid flank wall where the outlook above the existing boundary treatment is presently open. It would also be visible from the relatively large, glazed patio doors serving the rear of that property. However, those doors provide a broad outlook across and along the rear garden, of which the proposed extension would affect only the part closest to the shared boundary. A substantial open aspect would continue directly ahead and across the remainder of the garden. Consequently, while the proposal would alter the outlook from No.43, I am not persuaded that the change would be so enclosing or dominant as to result in an oppressive or overbearing relationship. 10. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.39 or No.43, having particular regard to outlook. It would accord with Policy 57 of the London Borough of Waltham Forest Local Plan (LP1) (2024), which seeks, amongst other matters, to ensure that development does not cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity. Appeal Decision 6011080 3 Conditions 11. 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 requiring the external materials to match those of the existing dwelling is also necessary to ensure a satisfactory appearance. 12. The Council’s decision notice includes an informative advising that any future application should be accompanied by an arboricultural report. However, harm to trees did not form a reason for refusal and the evidence before me does not identify any protected or otherwise significant tree that would be affected by the proposal. A condition requiring the submission of an arboricultural report would therefore not be necessary or reasonable. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR