Appeal 6000376

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P0495.25, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: PR-L003; PR-P001; PR-P002; PR-P004; PR-E002; PR-E003; PR-E004; PR-S001; PR-S002.

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 shall be formed on the outer flank elevations of the extension hereby permitted.

The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 10), with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal relates to a detached bungalow with a relatively long rear garden enclosed by fencing approximately 1.6–1.8 metres in height. The proposal is for a flat-roofed single-storey rear extension approximately 8 metres in depth, and 3 metres in height.

According to the Council’s measurements, the extension would project around 6.8 metres beyond the rear elevation of No 10, which lies to the south. The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (SPD) recommends a maximum rear projection of 4 metres for detached dwellings. However, this guidance is not prescriptive and allows for a case-by-case assessment based on site-specific circumstances.

In this case, both properties benefit from generous rear gardens. The extension would be set off the boundary with No 10 by approximately 1 metre, and the existing boundary fencing would screen much of the structure from ground-level views. Given the modest height, separation from the boundary, and existing screening, the extension would not appear unduly dominant or overbearing when viewed from No 10. The impact on outlook and daylight would be minimal.

The appellant has also referenced a fallback position in the form of [name] scheme (Y0017.25) for a similarly sized extension, but with a double projection. Case law confirms that a fallback need only be a realistic possibility, not a certainty. While the Council has expressed doubts about the viability of that scheme, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it could not be implemented by the appellant.

The appeal proposal would infill the central section of the [name] layout, resulting in a more coherent and practical design. It would likely have a lesser visual and spatial impact than the fallback scheme, which would involve two projecting elements separated by a narrow gap. This fallback position therefore adds weight in favour of the appeal, as the appeal scheme would result in no greater harm and arguably a better planning outcome.

In conclusion, I find that the development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10 with particular regard to outlook. It complies with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2021, which seeks to protect residential amenity.

Conditions have been imposed to ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. As suggested by the Council, these include restrictions on new openings and the use of the flat roof.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.