Erection of first floor side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 August 2026 by P Terceiro BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011248 3 Manford Way, Chigwell, Redbridge IG7 4JH • 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 Nilesh Hadiya against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref is 1080/26. • The development proposed is erection of first floor side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. I have however removed any wording which in itself does not relate to acts of development. 3. At my site visit I observed that a two-storey side and rear extension was constructed within the appeal site. However, this extension does not correspond with the proposed plans before me. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined this appeal based on the submitted plans. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and of the surrounding area. Reasons 5. 3 Manford Way (No 3) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling which lies within a spacious plot. The pair’s front elevation faces towards a footpath beyond which there is a green area with scattered trees. No 3 turns its side elevation to Manford Way and it occupies a prominent position within the street scene, with its side and rear elevations exposed to the public realm. The appeal dwelling has a flat roofed dormer window. 6. The existing elevations submitted with the appeal show that No 3 would have been typical of the development in the surrounding area, the street scene of which is generally characterised by pairs of semis with a hipped roof, side/rear projection with a cat-slide roof, and externally finished in different coloured brick. 7. The proposal seeks to construct a first-floor side and rear extension over the footprint of the side and rear ground floor extensions. While the side element Appeal Decision 6011248 2 would replicate No 3’s gabled roof form, it would only be marginally set down from the main roof. To the rear, the extension would be significantly wide and deep. Given such, the development would result in a bulky addition to No 3, that would fail to be subordinate to the scale of the host property. 8. Moreover, the rear element of the proposal would have a double hipped roof form, that would create a jarring and contrived interaction with the existing dormer. The roof profile therefore would appear convoluted and harm the character of No 3. 9. Having regard to the above, the extension would fail to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Due to its siting, the proposal would be prominent within the street scene, where it would present itself as an incongruous addition that would cause visual harm because of its substantial size and unsympathetic design. 10. Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021 and Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (2018). Amongst other things, these policies seek high-quality design in all development within the borough, and support householder development that is subordinate and complements the character of the building, including in terms of scale and style form. Conclusion 11. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. P Terceiro INSPECTOR