Appeal 6000542

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was changed following an email from the Council to the appellant dated 8 July 2025. I have therefore used the revised description in the header above, as shown on the Council’s decision notice, rather than the wording that was used in the original application form. However, ‘retrospective’ as referred to in the description of development is not an act of development. As such, I have removed the reference to this in the description above.

I am aware that three appeals have been dismissed at the site for the construction of a front structure1, signage2 and change of use3. For clarity, this appeal relates solely to the existing raised deck area, glass shopfront and the proposed glass balustrade, shutter and awning. I have determined the current appeal on its own merits and on the evidence presented in this case.

The main issues are:

the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and

the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties with particular regard to odour, noise and general activity. 1 Appeal ref: APP/B5480/W/24/3353116 2 Appeal ref: APP/B5480/H/24/3353117 3 Appeal ref: APP/B5480/W/25/3361365

The appeal site is a two storey, mid-terrace property comprised of a restaurant on the ground floor with residential accommodation above. No 3 lies within a parade of similarly set out retail and commercial units at ground floor level, with residential or commercial above. These properties have forecourt parking to the frontages which sit behind the pedestrian footway and [site address] .

The area is characterised by a variety of uses such as the [name], the [name], dental and health services, retail and commercial outlets, a school, the [name] public house, and residential properties.

To the front of No 3 is an existing deck and black framed and glazed structure with a retractable roof, enclosing an additional seating area for customers. The deck area form part of the current appeal.

The appellant referred to examples of other similar decked areas with canopies in the locality but did not provide any specific location or detail. During my site visit I took the opportunity to inspect various premises both along [site address] and its side roads. I noted the incidental outdoor seating of the [name] public house within its boundaries on both [site address] and the pubs beer garden observed from [address]. However, neither were comprised of raised platforms with canopies, nor did I observe any such similar development in the immediate locality.

The plans outline that the proposal would extend across the width of the appeal site and project outward from the front elevation to the back edge of the pedestrian footway. The commercial units along the terrace hold a uniform build line and sense of open interaction with the pedestrian and vehicular highway. The existing deck area proposed glazed balustrades and awning would present as a box like front extension detracting from the open character of the street scene.

As such, the proposed deck and balustrade would form a sizeable structure which would sit incongruously amid the existing parking areas and within wider views from public vantage points along [site address] . Accordingly, I find that the proposal would result in a structure that would be visually intrusive and starkly contrast with the prevailing open character and context of the street scene.

On the first main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (LP).

The appellants statement outlines that the premises at the ground floor was ‘previously operating as a café, drinking establishment and lounge’. I note that the change of use planning submission, was dismissed by the Inspector in appeal three, as referenced above. At the time of my site visit I observed that this use appeared to be continuing.

The appeal documents outline that the site operates from 0600 to 2300 daily. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the proposed structure might be used for additional seating by patrons of the premises during these times. As such, there would be a potential for noise, disturbance and odour early in the morning, and into the late evening. At these times residents would reasonably expect peaceful enjoyment of their home.

The appellant compares the potential impacts of the proposal to those of the local retail, commercial businesses, public house and 24hr cash machine. There is little information before me to indicate what effect these uses may have on the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers.

However, customers of the adjacent retail unit and users of the cash machine would be transient. With the exception of the public house opening times appeared mostly limited to normal office hours, whereas the appeal premises would attract groups of people wishing to socialise, eat and drink for potentially significant periods of time.

The appellant highlights the opening times of the [name] public house. However, the day-to-day operations of a public house would be subject to requirements of the licensing regime and objectives, which fall outside of planning controls.

There is limited information before me to indicate the levels of noise and odour that might be generated by the proposed development and what effect this would have on nearby occupiers. For instance, no technical reports addressing matters have been submitted. Given the proximity of residential units within the parade and my general observations of the site, it seems to me that there would be a reasonable prospect of harm attributable to the proposal, in terms of noise, activities and smells.

On the strength of evidence provided, I therefore conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would unduly harm the living conditions of nearby residents. Accordingly, the development conflicts with [name] 7 and 34 insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, considering the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.