Appeal 6000431

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension and installation of first floor side window at [site address] , Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0479.25, 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 the following approved plans: PL-03, PL-04, PL-05, and PL-06.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), no window or other opening (other than those shown on the submitted and approved plan) shall be formed in the flank wall of the extension hereby permitted facing [address], unless specific permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I have taken the description of development from the council’s decision notice for clarity and preciseness as the description on the application form does not make reference to the proposed installation of a first-floor side window which is indicated on the submitted plans.

The main issues are the effect the proposal would have on; i) the character and appearance of the area; and ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and light.

[site address] is a two-storey, semi-detached property which features a two-storey outrigger, and two outbuildings to the rear. It is adjoined with [address] and detached from [address] to the other side. The existing side wall of No. 4, which faces the appeal site, features a side window which serves a kitchen. This wall is set in from the boundary wall that divides it from the appeal site.

Due to its depth and height, the proposal will result in a degree of bulk being added to the dwelling, however the proposed extension will use materials to match the host dwelling. Furthermore, the extension would have limited visibility within the street scene due to its positioning to the rear. There is a presence of single storey rear extensions within the area, however these vary in scale. Nevertheless, based on my observations they are visible from rear gardens and windows of neighbouring properties. Whilst the appeal proposal would be of a considerable depth, I consider the proposal to maintain the character and appearance of the area.

I conclude that the proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies 7 and 26 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan (2021) (Local Plan) which, amongst other matters, requires development proposals to be of a high quality of design. I have also had regard to the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD).

The appellant’s statement demonstrates that the proposal would meet the guidelines set out for side and rear extensions within the SPD. Given this, combined with what I observed on site, the proposal would accord with the SPD guidance notwithstanding the appellant’s points about the SPD. Nevertheless, whilst the extension would, to an extent, impact the side facing window of No. 4, I consider this impact to be negligible given that this window already faces a boundary wall and the two-storey outrigger part of the host dwelling, meaning that it already has a limited outlook. Furthermore, the kitchen in No 4 benefits from French doors to the rear elevation, providing another alternative outlook and an additional source of natural light. The proposed extension would not intercept the 45 degree line when drawn from the corner of this part of No. 4’s outrigger. For these reasons, No. 4 will retain a suitable degree of outlook and light.

I conclude that the proposal would maintain the living conditions at No. 4 with particular regard to outlook and light. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Local Plan Policy 7 which, amongst other matters, supports developments that do not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook or light. I have also had regard to the SPD (2011).

In addition to the standard three-year period implementation condition, which is a statutory requirement, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty, to define the plans with which the appeal scheme should accord. To protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host dwelling, I am imposing a condition requiring materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development to match those used in the existing building. In addition to these, a condition is necessary in the interests of the living conditions of No 4 to restrict the formation of any new windows or other opening in the flank wall of the extension.

In accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, decisions must be made in line with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal accords with the development plan, and there are no material considerations that would justify departing from it. Accordingly, the decision should be taken in accordance with the

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.