Appeal 6000137

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ground floor side extension to extend kitchen, add 2 bathrooms and a utility, first floor rear extension to extend 2 bedrooms at [site address] , Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P1480.24, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site (No 9) comprises a detached chalet-style dwelling facing [address], with a long rear garden. This road is straight and tree-lined, and contains a notable variety of detached dwellings in terms of their height and style, including roof forms. There are some spacious gaps between dwellings.

The Emerson Park Policy Area Supplementary Planning Document ([name]) (Adopted 2009) states that Emerson Park is one of the most mature and pleasant residential districts in the Borough. The majority of [address] is within Sector 5 of this area, which the [name] describes as containing a mixture of medium and large sized detached family houses set in spacious well landscaped grounds.

I found [address] and No 9 to be representative of the above identified positive characteristics. The EPPA SPD also advises that in order to maintain the dwelling mix, any application for further development should reflect the particular character of the street scene in the immediate vicinity of the site.

The element of the proposal subject of this appeal relates to a first-floor flat roofed rear dormer extension. It would only be marginally set back from the existing eaves of No 9, and it would be flush with an existing side gable. In these respects, the proposed dormer goes against the guidance of the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document ([name]) (Adopted 2011).

However, the proposed dormer would be set well below No 9’s main ridge line, to tie in with an existing flat roof rear dormer. Whilst the rear dormer would project beyond No 9’s main roof, to extend over its ground floor rear extension, the taller two storey extensions within the adjoining sites to each side of No 9 project beyond No 9’s rearmost elevation. Both these neighbouring extensions include pitched rear gable ends.

The resultant cumulative rear dormer would form a significant addition in terms of bulk and mass, when viewed from the rear garden environment. However, given the immediate surrounding context as set out above, this would not lead to an intrusive, dominant or top-heavy visual impact. Public views along [address] would be limited and fleeting.

I also noted numerous two storey rear extensions visible along [address] near to No 9, including some dormers beyond the ridge slope. I accept that No 9’s existing first floor extension predates current guidance, and so may other nearby examples, which could have also potentially been constructed under permitted development rights. Be that as it may, for the above reasons I have found that the proposal is compatible with the character of No [address] scene.

I therefore conclude that the proposed rear dormer complies with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (HLP) (Adopted 2021). This policy requires, amongst other things, development proposals to respect the visual integrity and established scale, massing and height of the surrounding physical context. In turn, I have found no conflict with Policy D4 of the London Plan, and that the development would maintain the positive character of Emerson Park as sought by the [name].

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, and have amended their wording, where necessary. A condition specifying time limits for the development (condition

is necessary in the interests of planning certainty. Condition 2 is necessary to clarify the approved plan details. Condition 3 is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. For precision and clarity, I have deleted reference to “to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority”.

Condition 4 is necessary in the interests of living conditions of neighbouring residents. As this condition removes specific permitted development rights, it is not necessary for it to refer to permission needed from the Local Planning Authority. I have made other minor amendments to this condition, for precision and clarity.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted must be commenced not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the following approved plans: DS1-01; DS1-02; DS1-03; DS1-04; DS1-05; DS1-06; DS1-07; DS1-08; DS1-09.

All new external finishes shall be carried out in materials to match those of the existing building.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window or other opening (other than those shown on the approved plans) shall be formed in the flank walls of the building hereby permitted. ***End of Schedule***