Appeal 6000929

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as a first floor addition to create a chalet style bungalow with storage area to the loft, front addition to extend the garage forward at [site address] , Havering, Romford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0797.25, 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 drawing nos 6185/ 01 [name], 03, 05 [name], 06, and 08.

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 issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of Number [address] (No 21) with particular regard to outlook, and Number [address] (No 25) with regard to light.

[address] comprises mainly detached single and two storey dwellings of an array of designs though with some observable pockets of uniformity. The appeal site comprises a detached, single storey dwelling with front and rear gardens. The dwelling is sited beyond the rear building line of No 21, a detached two storey unit. As such the side elevation of the existing dwelling is visible by the occupants of No 21 from their ground floor rear windows, including their conservatory which projects beyond the existing rear elevation and the garden space to the side and immediate rear.

The extended dwelling would be taller but not significantly so. The roof as it would occur closest to the boundary shared with No 21 would also lean away. There would be an effect on the side garden to No 21 but this is used as a driveway. It would maintain a degree of separation between the side elevation of No 21 and the new building. The rear facing windows of No [address] of the larger mass of the extended appeal building but only obliquely. An effect which would be further diluted but the presence of No 21’s own garage.

The increase in height would perhaps be more noticeable from the private amenity area closest to No 21, formalised through a patio area. However, there is an existing wall that runs in line with the side elevation of No 21 before forming the side elevation of the garage. Therefore, the outlook of this space is primarily derived from views across the main garden toward the rear boundary. In any event, the proposal would be set suitably back from this area and, in cumulation with the aforementioned design, would not result in unacceptable overbearing effects which may detrimentally impinge on the outlook for occupants and users.

The appeal dwelling broadly aligns with the single-storey dwelling at No 25 and the proposed development would effectively introduce a two-storey mass within close proximity to the shared boundary. Windows in the side elevation of No 25 serve habitable rooms; however, these are secondary, with daylight primarily entering through the rear elevation. The proposed development’s massing and location would ensure that the single-storey element is set well away from the flank window at the rear end of the property, and the two-storey element would not intrude into its direct outlook. Any reduction in light to this secondary window arising from the proposal would therefore be minimal. In any event, the modest size and siting of these flank windows confirm their secondary nature, and the proposed development would not affect the majority of light which is currently admitted through the primary windows. Consequently, the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable loss of light to the occupants of No 25.

The proposals would therefore not harm the living conditions of the occupants Nos 21 or [address]. As such I find no conflict with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan. Among other things, this aims to ensure development does not have an unacceptable loss of sunlight and daylight or outlook to existing residents.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I recommend one requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is necessary for enforcement purposes.

Permitted Development (PD) rights may allow the addition of windows on the flank walls. However, the outlook from those implemented at ground floor would be screened by the existing boundary fence and those at first floor would be subject to conditions requiring that they are obscure glazed and fixed shut below 1.7 metres. Therefore, there would be no loss of privacy to adjacent occupants should such works be carried out. Furthermore, any other changes outside the remit of PD would require express planning permission and therefore the Council would be able to assess its impact. A balcony, roof garden or element to that effect has not been applied for. These would also require express planning permission.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend it be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the conditions listed above.