Front canopy and pillars

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 August 2026 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011495 112 Redbridge Lane East, Ilford, Redbridge IG4 5BX • 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 Shanaz Syeda against the decision of the London Borough of Redbridge Council. • The application Ref is 2769/25. • The development is a front canopy and pillars. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Subsequent to the decision made by the Council on the application to which this appeal relates, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) (the Framework). I have sought comments from the main parties on the revised Framework in relation to the appeal. It will therefore not prejudice any party by making my decision with regard to the revised Framework. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. Reasons 4. The appeal dwelling is an end of terrace two storey dwelling that has previously been extended to its flank side by a two storey extension with a bay window. The bay window in the extension reflects in design and scale the front bay of the original house. It is located at the end of a terrace of similarly scaled houses, with a variety of porch and canopy type additions to the front. 5. The appeal development is the addition of a canopy approximately 3.1 metres in total height and 2.4 metres deep, which extends across the front of the appeal dwelling by approximately 7.1 metres. It starts at the edge junction of the original front bay and sits across the main entrance and top of the bay in the existing side extension, ending at the corner of the front wall and flank of this extension. Due to the set back of the side extension, the canopy above the main entrance projects further forward than that part above the bay and is supported to its front by two square pillars. Appeal Decision 6011495 2 6. From my site visit it would appear that construction of an additional enclosure has been started to the front of the main entrance of the appeal dwelling. This sits under the canopy that is the subject of this appeal. This additional enclosure does not form part of the original refused application, and I have not considered it as part of this appeal. 7. The design guidance set out in Redbridge Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (the SPD) sets out that the front of a house is a prominent feature of the streetscene, and therefore any alterations should be proportionate in scale and sympathetic in character to minimise the visual impact on the host property and the streetscene. This goes on to say that where a bay window exists, a porch must not extend beyond the depth of the bay and needs to have a separation of at least 0.3 metres from the bay. 8. The appeal canopy extends significantly further forward than both the original front bay and that in the side extension and sits directly above the bay in the side extension. The canopy does not have the separation of 0.3 metres from either the original bay or that in the side extension, as set out in the SPD. In direct frontal views of the appeal dwelling, and in other longer views from both sides of the street, this results in the extent, projection and scale of the canopy and supporting pillars appearing as excessive and overscale in relation to the appeal dwelling, and to not reflect or respond to its design. 9. The canopy and pillars projecting significantly further forward that the bays on the front of the appeal dwelling, obscure and lessons the prominence of the bays, which previously established the main architectural features on the front of the house. The front bays that are a feature it shares with many of the houses in the terrace and nearby houses in the street and that collectively make up a significant unifying feature within the streetscape of the local area. Consequently, the extent, projection and scale of the canopy and pillars dominate and overwhelm the appearance of the front of the appeal dwelling. 10. Whilst the ground level of the appeal dwelling is slightly above ground level and the main entrance is a couple of steps up from ground level, this is a minor factor in terms of how the canopy and pillars appear in relation to the dwelling itself. Where the over scaled and dominating effect of the proposal is substantially the result of its excessive width, depth and proximity to the bays of the appeal dwelling. It is also these aspects of the canopy that result in it appearing as incongruous and not a subordinate addition to the appeal dwelling. 11. The appellant argues that the scale of the development is driven by functional, structural integrity and safety requirements. However, no information has been provided that shows why or how this is the case. I have therefore only afforded this minimal weight in my considerations. 12. Whilst the majority of the other houses in this part of the street have been the subject of alteration and porch/canopy extensions, these do not project further forward than existing bays or beyond the original front elevation of their hosts to the extent of the canopy and supporting columns to the front of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, the scale, extent and projection of the canopy and columns result in the appeal dwelling appearing as incongruous within the streetscene, and to be unsympathetic and out of character within the context of the terraces in the local Appeal Decision 6011495 3 area. As such, I find that the development conflicts with the design guidance in the SPD and its objectives. 13. As part of their statement the appellant has drawn attention to other dwellings in the wider area that have been the subject of additional canopy and pillar structures, including one within the same street that is some distance and not visible from the appeal dwelling. I was able to visit these examples on my site visit. However, I have not been provided with any further planning background, previous situation or age. whilst these do form a small part of the wider physical context to the proposal, the detrimental effect of these on the character and appearance of their host properties and the local area is evident. As such, I do not find that these provide convincing exemplars for the design and scale of the appeal development, and I have therefore afforded these little weight in my considerations. 14. I note Appendix 1 of the appellant’s statement that includes documented support from neighbours for the development and their finding that the development is not intrusive or visually harmful, integrates with the host dwelling and street and does not detract from the overall appearance or character of the area. However, I have, for the reasons given above, come to a different conclusion with regard to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. I have there for only afforded these supporting comments only moderate weight in my considerations. 15. For the reasons given, I find that the development results in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. This does not accord with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015- 2030 and Policy DP3 of the Framework. Collectively these seek development that is of high quality design, compatible with the character of the building, is subordinate to the existing building in terms of size and scale, responds to local character and context and is compatible with the existing area character and patterns of development. Conclusion 16. The appeal is dismissed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR