Appeal 6000701

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as “side and rear extensions with internal and external alterations” at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0758.25, 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: [name](s) + Internal and [name] 25.133/03, 25.133/04 and 25.133/05.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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 main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No. 161) with specific regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling close to a noticeable bend in the road, which results in a wider frontage than neighbouring properties. The surrounding area is characterised by a consistent pattern of development comprising predominantly semi-detached and terraced houses of simple form. These dwellings are arranged in a tight layout with minimal spacing between, creating a continuous frontage along the street. All properties are set back from the highway behind modest front gardens, which provides a uniform building line. While the appeal site is slightly more noticeable due to the current gap between it and No. 161, it does not appear overly obvious within the wider streetscape.

The Residential Extensions & Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (SPD) advises that side extensions should reflect the original house, maintain characteristic gaps and include a one-metre step down and set back to avoid a terracing effect. The two-storey side extension would not meet the one-metre guidance but would incorporate elements that would reduce its massing, including a small step down and set back, ensuring subservience to the host dwelling.

Due to the property’s position, the proposals would not appear directly alongside No. 161, mitigating any sense of enclosure. Nonetheless, the National Planning Policy Framework, which postdates the SPD, states that the level of detail and degree of prescription in design guides should be tailored to the circumstances and scale of change and should allow a suitable degree of variety. Any perceived terracing would remain consistent with local character as it is a defining feature of the street scene. In addition, the flat-roofed single-storey garage would preserve a visual gap between properties. The Council does not object to the single storey rear extension, and I have no reason to disagree.

The proposed development would be less bulky and dominant than the previous scheme dismissed at appeal, which included a front gable and wrap around extension. As a result, the proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and, as a consequence, would not conflict with Policy 26 of Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (2021) (LP) which, amongst other things, requires new development to respond to distinctive local building forms and patterns of development with respect to established scale, massing, and rhythm of the surrounding physical context.

Whilst not a reason for refusal, the Council does have substantive concerns over the effect of the appeal scheme on the outlook for the occupiers of No. 161. The proposed side extension would not extend beyond the existing rear elevation of the host dwelling, thereby maintaining the established building line. Furthermore, the removal of the substantial brick-built outbuilding currently positioned close to the shared boundary with No. 161 would notably reduce any sense of enclosure presently experienced by occupiers of that property. Taken together, these changes would ensure that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook for the occupiers of No. 161.

Although the proposed upper rear bedroom window would be closer to the boundary with neighbours No. 161, given the limited size of rear gardens, it would not materially increase the availability of views into the rear garden of No. 161. I am therefore satisfied that the occupiers of No. 161 would continue to enjoy a good standard of privacy. Accordingly, the proposals would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Therefore, they would accord with Policy 7 of the LP which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development does not result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy or outlook for existing residents.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have set out a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved plans for enforcement purposes. A condition requiring the use of materials matching that of the existing building is also necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development. A condition limiting access to the roof would not be necessary since a separate permission would be required to use it as a balcony.

A condition has been suggested to prevent the creation of new windows or doors in the flank or rear elevations without prior authorisation. This would not be necessary as a separate permission or compliance with the permitted development regime would be required for the insertion of such in the upper floors. New windows in the ground floor side elevation would, given surrounding development and boundary treatment, be unlikely to adversely affect neighbours’ living conditions.

Similarly, I have no evidence before me to suggest that a condition relating to the use of the proposed garage is necessary given that the proposal clearly states it is for a garage in the private sense and not for business or commercial use. Any change of use thereto would likely also need planning permission.

The appeal scheme would comply with the development plan for the reasons I have set out and there is nothing to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions specified.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions set out.