Appeal 6000494

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension and extension of garage to front at [site address] , Havering, Upminster [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0459.25, 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 approved plans: PL_6257_16, PL_6257_17, PL_6257_18, PL_6257_11A, PL_6257_19A

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

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 in the flank walls of the rear extension element of the proposal hereby permitted.

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

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 note there is a discrepancy between the original description of the development as shown on the planning application form and that used by the Council on the decision notice. [name] am satisfied that both are seeking to describe the same Appeal Planning Officer 6000494 proposed development, I have taken the description of the development in the banner heading above from the Council’s decision notice, as it provides a more concise description of the proposal, which I note the appellant has also adopted with the Grounds of Appeal.

The Council raises no objection to the proposed extension of the garage to the front. On the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree as the modest scale of the extension would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling or street scene.

Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions for the occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.

[address] is a residential street comprising of two storey semi-detached dwellings of a similar architectural style, each with long rear gardens. A number of the properties along the road feature single storey rear extensions of varying designs.

The London Borough of [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document Adopted 2011 (SPD) provides guidance on the depth of rear extensions. The guidelines refer to a general rule allowing an extension of up to 4m in depth for a semi-detached dwelling. Any greater depth should remain within a 45 degree angle taken from the 4m point on the property boundary. Due to its depth and design, the proposed rear extension would conflict with the SPD guidance. However, the guidance also states that the actual depth of a rear extension will depend on site specific factors including amongst other considerations, plot width, size and shape.

The proposal comprises a flat roof section with a roof light, adjoining a pitched roof that continues the form of the existing single storey extension, which currently projects approximately 3.5m along the boundary with No 43. The Council’s Officer report states that the extension would have minimal impact on No 43’s amenity due to its siting, scale and height and I find no reason to disagree.

The flat roof section of the extension would be positioned along the boundary with No 47, replacing the existing single storey hipped roof extension and extending further in depth and closer to the side boundary. Although visible above the existing boundary treatment it would be modest in height and would be subordinate to the pitched roof ridge section of the extension. The unobtrusive design of the extension would limit the bulk and scale so that it would not appear overbearing or visually imposing.

A bay window on the rear elevation of No [address] to the boundary with the appeal site. Whilst the proposal would be partially visible from this window in oblique views, the main outlook towards the rear garden would not be significantly impacted. Although the development would be near the patio of No 47, the garden is of ample width and depth that despite some enclosure along the side boundary, some notable sense of openness would be preserved. Given the design Appeal Planning Officer 6000494 and position of the proposal, the sun’s trajectory and orientation of the properties and gardens it would not cause a significant loss of light to No 47.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not appear unduly intrusive, result in an overbearing impact or loss of light and overshadowing that would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No 47. Whilst there would clearly be some conflict with the SPD guidance, the proposal is in accordance with Policy 7 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan (2021) which seeks to ensure that the amenity and quality of life for existing and future residents is not adversely impacted.

Conditions relating to the commencement of development and for the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary for enforcement purposes and clarity.

In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area, a condition is necessary requiring the external materials of the extensions to match those used in the existing dwelling.

Given the relationship of the rear extension with the neighbouring properties a restriction on further openings would be reasonable in the interests of maintaining privacy. Use of the flat roof for amenity space would have the potential to materially impact on neighbouring privacy, and a restriction on its use is reasonable and necessary. As such, with some modification to wording for precision, I have attached the Council’s suggested conditions.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan, when read as a whole and as such 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.