Appeal 6000656

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

The appeal form adopts the description set out in the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the description provided on the original application form, which I have used above, accurately reflects the development to which this appeal relates.

From the evidence before me and my observations on site, it is clear that the majority of the proposed works have already been carried out. This appeal therefore seeks, in part, to regularise those works and to amend certain elements.

During my site visit, I noted discrepancies between the submitted “as built” and “proposed” plans, including variations in widths and positioning of windows on both the front and rear elevations. In addition, a wooden gazebo was present to the rear of the property, although it does not appear on any submitted plans. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the details shown on the submitted plans.

The Council does not object to the proposed conversion of the property to two dwellings, the single‐storey front extension, or the alterations to fenestration and opening elements of the appeal scheme. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focusses on the proposed gabled roof to the original dwelling, the two-storey side extension and the rear dormers.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of future occupiers of Number [address] (No. 1) with specific regard to internal floorspace.

The appeal building is a substantially extended former semi-detached dwelling located on a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The original dwelling has been subdivided into two dwellings (No. 1 and Number 1a (No. 1a) [address]) resulting in a terrace of three units. The appeal properties have been finished in white render with grey tiled roofs and, together with their large rear dormers, are clearly visible from the public realm.

The surrounding street scene is characterised by predominantly two‐storey semi‐detached dwellings of consistent design, typically finished in painted render or brick, and unified by hipped, red‐tiled roofs. Although the [name] lies opposite the site, the prevailing residential form exhibits a coherent rhythm, scale and roof profile that contribute to a strong and harmonious suburban character. Notably, no rear dormer extensions are visible within the immediate street scene, reinforcing this uniformity.

The development seeks to regularise a substantial two storey side extension together with a partial hip to gable enlargement to the original roof. However, the resulting form would constitute a significant and harmful departure from the established character of the original semi-detached pair and the wider street scene. The introduction of a gable within a street defined by consistent hipped roofs would create a conspicuously discordant roof profile, and the abrupt transition between the differing forms would appear particularly jarring.

The combined massing of the enlarged side extension and altered roof structure would fail to read as subordinate to the original built form. Instead, it would form an overly dominant and visually obtrusive addition, undermining the legibility of the former semi‐detached pair and disrupting the coherence of the resulting terrace.

While the subdivision of the existing full‐width rear dormer would marginally lessen the massing at No. 1a, the dormer proposed at No. 1 would still span almost the entire roof width and would not be set below the ridge. It would therefore remain a dominant and bulky structure. Although the dormer at No. 1a would be modestly set down, its revised layout would increase the visibility of the associated hip‐to‐gable enlargement, drawing further attention to an already incongruous roof form.

Taken together, the dormers would present as large, box‐like additions that lack appropriate subordination. Their scale would erode the original proportions of the dwellings and appear discordant in comparison with neighbouring roofscapes. The resulting visual impact would be harmful and unsympathetic to both the host buildings and the wider area.

Given the prominent corner position of the site, the visual harm would be particularly pronounced, reinforcing the perception of overdevelopment. Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (2021). As well as guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which, amongst other things, all seek to ensure new development responds to local distinctive building forms respecting the established scale, massing and rhythm of the building.

Policy D6 of The London Plan, the Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (2021) (SDS) requires new residential development meets the minimum internal space standards set out in the [name] (NDSS). These standards ensure that homes provide adequate space for day-to-day living, including circulation, storage, and the placement of essential furniture, thereby creating a comfortable and functional environment for future occupiers.

Bedroom 1 of No. 1 would fall significantly below the minimum NDSS requirement for a single bedroom. Even for a single occupant, such a room would reasonably be expected to accommodate activities beyond sleeping, including studying, relaxation and storage. Compliance with the NDSS, which are designed to support health, well-being, and quality of life is therefore an important component of ensuring acceptable living conditions.

No substantive evidence has been provided to justify a departure from these minimum standards or to demonstrate that the reduced size would nevertheless provide acceptable usability. Given what would need to be amended it would not be possible to deal with this matter through the use of conditions. Accordingly, the proposal would result in substandard living conditions for future occupiers of No. 1, contrary to Policy D6 of the SDS, and paragraph 135 of the Framework, which seek to ensure that development creates places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Matters relating to current enforcement proceedings are for the main parties to resolve outside of this appeal process.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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