Case 3278829

161 & 163 Monkhams Lane, WOODFORD GREEN, IG8 0NP

London Borough of Redbridge — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
18 March 2022
Authority
London Borough of Redbridge
Inspector
Ollerenshaw M
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Other minor developments
Appellant
Mr Yordan Madzhirov
Agent
Mr Kwaku Gyamera
LPA reference
1773/21
ONS LPA code
E09000026
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
25 October 2021

Summary AI

The appeal was dismissed due to the proposed development's impact on the character and appearance of the host properties and the surrounding area. The development would be excessively large, have a flat roof design, and lack proportion to the host properties, contrary to policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030, Policy D6 of the London Plan, and the Housing Design SPD.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

161 & 163 Monkhams Lane, WOODFORD GREEN, IG8 0NP — London Borough of Redbridge — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 March 2022 by M Ollerenshaw BSc(Hons) MTPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 March 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/W/21/3278829 161 and 163 Monkhams Lane, Woodford Green IG8 0NP • 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 Yordan Madzhirov against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref 1773/21, dated 24 April 2021, was refused by notice dated 16 June 2021. • The development proposed is erection of first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Following the refusal of the planning application, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 20 July 2021. However, it does not materially alter the national policy approach in respect of the issues raised in this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the host properties and the surrounding area. Reasons 4.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

161 & 163 Monkhams Lane, WOODFORD GREEN, IG8 0NP — London Borough of Redbridge — Appeal Decision The appeal site comprises a two storey, semi-detached pair of dwellings which are located on Monkhams Lane within a residential area. The dwellings are set back from the road with gardens and driveways to the front with larger, private rear gardens, which are bounded by mature hedges and trees. Both properties have two storey side extensions and single storey rear extensions. The two properties are not symmetrical due to the differing designs and sizes of the two storey side extensions. The single storey rear extensions have flat roofs, apart from a small pitched roof at the centre where they are joined together. 5. Within the wider area there is a mixture of styles of detached and semi-detached houses which generally have hipped roofs and tend to be set within large plots with planting in the gardens. Together with the woodland on the other side of the road from the site, this results in a spacious and verdant character. 6. The proposed development would comprise first floor extensions to the rear of both properties which would be joined together and constructed in line with the footprint of the existing single storey extensions below. The extensions would have flat roofs with mock pitched roofs at the rear.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

161 & 163 Monkhams Lane, WOODFORD GREEN, IG8 0NP — London Borough of Redbridge — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

161 & 163 Monkhams Lane, WOODFORD GREEN, IG8 0NP — London Borough of Redbridge — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/W5780/W/21/3278829 7. The Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (SPD) advises that a first floor rear extension should generally be no more than half the width of the original rear elevation to ensure it is proportionate and subordinate to the host property and minimise the impact on the amenity of neighbours. 8. Contrary to that guidance, the proposed extensions would extend across the full width of the rear of both properties and would be excessively large and out of proportion to the host properties. The lack of any set back from the existing extensions below or from the side elevations of the main buildings would emphasise the scale and massing of the proposals. Although the existing rear extensions have flat roofs, by comparison to the proposal they are of relatively modest proportions and do not dominate the rear of the properties. 9. The flat roof design of the proposed first floor extensions would sit uncomfortably against the roof designs of the original properties and the immediate neighbours, all of which are characterised by hipped roofs.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

161 & 163 Monkhams Lane, WOODFORD GREEN, IG8 0NP — London Borough of Redbridge — Appeal Decision Moreover, the positioning of the eaves of the extensions above the eaves of the original properties is an awkward design detail, which would further detract from the appearance of the buildings and fail to respect the general character of residential built form in the area. 10. Apart from glimpsed views from Monkhams Lane in gaps in the trees to the west, the proposed extensions would not be highly visible in the street scene. However, the development would still be highly noticeable and discordant when viewed from the rear gardens of the properties and from neighbouring properties. 11. The appellant refers to other first floor rear extensions in the locality, however no specific details have been provided. I cannot therefore draw any direct comparison between these and the appeal proposal and so cannot be sure they represent a direct parallel to the proposal. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits. 12. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host properties and the surrounding area.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

161 & 163 Monkhams Lane, WOODFORD GREEN, IG8 0NP — London Borough of Redbridge — Appeal Decision It is therefore contrary to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015- 2030 (2018), Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and the SPD, which seek, amongst other things, to promote high quality design and ensure that development respects local character. Other Matters 13. Although the proposal would provide enlarged accommodation within the two properties, this would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the properties and the area. Therefore, this consideration does not outweigh the harm that I have identified. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 2 · Chunk 6 M Ollerenshaw

161 & 163 Monkhams Lane, WOODFORD GREEN, IG8 0NP — London Borough of Redbridge — M Ollerenshaw INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶10

The proposed extensions would be highly noticeable and discordant when viewed from the rear gardens of the properties and from neighbouring properties, detracting from the appearance of the buildings and failing to respect the general character of residential built form in the area.

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶9

The flat roof design of the proposed first floor extensions would sit uncomfortably against the roof designs of the original properties and the immediate neighbours, all of which are characterised by hipped roofs.

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶8

The proposed extensions would extend across the full width of the rear of both properties and would be excessively large and out of proportion to the host properties.

Other
Against appellant
¶11

The inspector could not draw any direct comparison between other first floor rear extensions in the locality and the appeal proposal, and therefore could not be sure they represented a direct parallel to the proposal.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
LP26
Determinative
LP30
Determinative
Policy D6 of the London Plan
Determinative
Housing Design SPD
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 18 March 2022 under the Open Government Licence.