Appeal 6000586

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey front and rear extensions and double storey side extension at [site address] , Upminster, Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0668.25, 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: MAV-ZZ-00-DR-K-04-002 P03, MAV-ZZ-01-DR-K-04- 002 P03, MAV-ZZ-ZZ-DR-K-01-001 P01, MAV-ZZ-ZZ-DR-K-01-003 P02, MAV-ZZ-ZZ-DR-K-05-002 P03, MAV-ZZ-ZZ-DR-K-05-003 P03, [name]-06-001 P02.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no. MAV-ZZ-ZZ-DR-K-05-003 P03.

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. Appeal Planning Officer 6000586

The Council raises no objection to the proposed single storey front extension and double storey side extension. On the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree as it would not have a detrimental impact on 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 20 and [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.

[address] is a residential road characterised by two storey semi-detached dwellings of a similar architectural style with long rear gardens. Several of the dwellings along the street have single storey rear extensions of varying depths and design.

This is a revised scheme following refusal of planning permission at the site (reference P0165.25) for a ‘Single storey front & rear extensions and double storey side extension’. The proposal includes alterations to the roof form of the rear extension which is positioned marginally inset from the neighbouring side boundaries.

The London Borough of [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document Adopted 2011 (SPD) provides guidance on the depth of rear extensions. It refers to a general rule of up to 4m in depth for a semi-detached dwelling. It advises any greater depth should be within an angle of 45 degrees, taken from the 4m dimension on the property boundary, in order to ensure a reasonable level of amenity is afforded to neighbouring properties. However, it states that the depth will depend on site specific considerations including amongst other matters, plot width, size and shape.

The Council Officer’s report confirms that the height of the proposed rear extension is acceptable. However, given the design and depth, the rear extension would conflict with the SPD guidance, resulting in an extended built form along the garden boundaries of No 20 and 24. Although it would project above the existing boundary treatment with No 24, the extension would be set slightly back from the side boundary. It would create a white rendered boundary wall with No 20, reflecting a similar arrangement that currently exists between Nos 18 and 20. Its single storey form, crown roof designed to slope away from the boundaries and modest eaves height, would mitigate the bulk and visual impact to an acceptable level.

The rear extension would have a close relationship with the garden patio area for No 20 and 24. However, the gardens of these neighbouring properties are deep and of a sufficient width, that despite some degree of enclosure along the side boundary, open aspects would be retained. Consequently, the proposal would not appear unduly intrusive nor result in an overbearing impact that would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The Council has expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the proposal on sunlight to the rear of No 20. However, the appellant’s submission includes light cast diagrams for both summer and winter months, which demonstrate that, given the orientation of No 20, a degree of overshadowing to the rear elevation already Appeal Planning Officer 6000586 occurs during the summer months. The diagrams further indicate that during mid-morning to midday in summer, the extent of overshadowing as a result of the extension would not reach the nearest habitable window on the rear elevation of No 20, which the appellants state is approximately 7 metres from the boundary of the appeal site. In winter, the level of overshadowing would not result in a significant change to this window. Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that No 20 would not experience an unacceptable reduction in sunlight or daylight. Due to the orientation of No 24, the proposal would not affect sunlight or daylight to that property.

Reference has been made to decisions relating to prior approval, planning applications and appeals at other properties. However, the information provided is limited, making it unclear whether these cases share comparable circumstances, particularly in relation to their impact on neighbouring properties. In any event, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers at No 20 and 24. Accordingly, whilst there is conflict with the SPD guidance, I find no conflict 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 is necessary for enforcement purposes and clarity.

In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area, a condition is necessary requiring the external materials of the extensions to be constructed in accordance with those detailed in the submitted plans.

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 there is nothing sufficiently compelling to indicate a decision otherwise. I therefore recommend that the appeal is allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Appeal Planning Officer 6000586