To replace existing single storey rear conservatory to same footprint as existing with central area raised by 300mm. Relocated French doors

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013032 289 Roding Lane North, Woodford Green, IG8 8LH • 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 Amina Ishaq against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref is 0321/26. • The development proposed is to replace existing single storey rear conservatory to same footprint as existing with central area raised by 300mm. Relocated French doors. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to replace existing single storey rear conservatory to same footprint as existing with central area raised by 300mm. Relocated French doors at 289 Roding Lane North, Woodford Green, IG8 8LH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0321/26 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. Procedural Matters 2. Planning permission was granted in 20241 for the removal of the conservatory and its replacement with a single storey rear extension on the same footprint. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 291 Roding Lane North, with regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a two storey end-terraced dwelling situated within a predominantly residential area characterised by the presence of terraced and semi- detached dwellings. To the rear of the appeal dwelling is an existing single storey conservatory, which is largely glazed and has a lightweight appearance. 1 Reference: 2415/24. Appeal Decision 6013032 2 5. The proposal would replace the existing conservatory on the same footprint. The central area of the roof would be raised by 300mm, whilst the eaves height would remain the same. The roof would slope upwards towards the slightly higher central section. 6. During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings in the area have been altered or extended and that such changes tend to appear in keeping with the surrounding area. In this respect, I am mindful that the Council’s officer’s report specifically identifies nearby rear extensions, including at Numbers 301, 305 and 307 Roding Lane North. 7. Whilst the proposal would result in an increase in the height of the proposed conservatory compared to that already permitted in 2024, any increase in height would only be modest and crucially, would be largely confined to the central part of the roof. 8. The existing conservatory already extends to the depth proposed and there would be no increase in its footprint. The extension would remain largely glazed and would continue to appear as a lightweight structure. The proposed increase in height, in the manner proposed, would be largely imperceptible within its surroundings. There is nothing of substance to suggest that the proposal would appear out of scale and character with the appeal dwelling or with the surrounding area, where extensions are commonplace. 9. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would remain subordinate to the host dwelling and that it would not appear out of keeping with the pattern of development in the surrounding area. Consequently, it would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan; or to the Council’s Housing Guide SPD (2019), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 10. Number 291 Roding Lane North adjoins the appeal property and the appeal dwelling’s existing conservatory extends a short distance alongside the shared boundary with this neighbouring dwelling. The proposed development would follow the same line as the existing extension and it would not project any further to the rear. 11. The eaves height adjacent to the shared boundary with No 291 would remain the same, with the roof rising away from the boundary towards the slightly higher central section. Consequently, the increase in height would be largely set away from the shared boundary. 12. Neither the proposed height of the conservatory nor the use of materials would result in a bulkier and more enclosing form of development. As above, the change in height proposed would be largely imperceptible and I find that the largely glazed nature of the extension would mean that it would continue to appear as a lightweight structure. 13. The choice of materials would result in a simple and neatly presented conservatory. Noting this and all of the above, I find that any increased effect on the outlook from No 291 arising from the design of the proposed development and the materials Appeal Decision 6013032 3 proposed would be marginal at the very most. The proposal would not appear unduly dominant or overbearing and nor would it result in any unacceptable sense of enclosure. 14. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 291 Roding Lane North, with regard to outlook. It would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan; or to the Council’s Housing Guide SPD (2019), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 15. In reaching my decision, I have had careful regard to the personal circumstances of the occupier and the reasons for seeking level access throughout the ground floor. I empathise with the difficulties described and recognise the benefits that the proposed development would provide in this regard. These are matters which weigh in favour of the proposal and lend further support to my conclusion. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal is successful. N McGurk INSPECTOR