Appeal 6000975

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for variation of condition No.3 ([name]) of planning permission ref: P0067.25 dated 25/03/2025 to permit a change to approved materials (Two storey front extension, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer, replacement roof tiles, windows and front door with entrance canopy and new brick boundary wall with hard and soft landscaping improvements) at Brookside, [site address] , Havering, Romford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0982.25 subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

On the 25th March 2025 planning permission was granted for ‘two storey front extension, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer, replacement roof tiles, windows and front door with entrance canopy and new brick boundary wall with hard and soft landscaping improvements’1. The plans showed a soft red brick plinth around the base of the building, the landscaping with the circular driveway and dwarf wall was noted as soft red brick, the windows were annotated ‘Residence R9 flush casement windows finished in chalk white’.

The appellant seeks to vary the materials used on the development by varying condition no.3 of the permission to allow for the replacement of the soft red brick with yellow stock brick and to amend the R9 casements to black. 1 P0067.25

The main issue is whether the condition is reasonable and necessary in order to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area

The appeal site comprises a detached, two-storey dwelling on a spacious plot located within the Gidea Park Conservation Area. The dwelling is a later addition to the estate and is surrounded by residential development of varying styles.

The special interest of the conservation area derives from the exhibition houses of the 1910/11 and 1934. The architectural character of these houses, along with the estate’s layout, collectively defines the overall character and appearance of the conservation area. Thus, insofar as is relevant to this case, the significance of the conservation area as a whole is derived from the architectural detailing and layout of the buildings within it.

The Council Conservation Officer (CCO) raises no objection to the proposed replacement of the white uPVC windows with black uPVC windows, and I have no reason to disagree.

The dispute between the main parties relates to the proposed use of a yellow stock brick plinth. The CCO acknowledges that although the use of yellow stock brick plinth is observed in the conservation area, its use with render has not been observed and would appear out of keeping causing less than substantial harm to the conservation area. Concern has also been raised to the reduction in the amount of soft landscaping shown on the site frontage.

I have been provided with evidence of yellow stock brick plinth and painted render walls within the area and with substantial evidence of the use of yellow stock brick work on boundary walling and on the elevations of dwellings, largely mixed with tile hanging or as the main elevation treatment. In my view, just because yellow stock brick work with painted render is not the dominant elevational treatment in the area, this should not preclude its use, providing the overall effect preserves or enhances the conservation area.

The proposed use of yellow stock brick as a brick plinth and as wall piers would not be the dominant elevational treatment on the property and the mix of the plinth with painted render would only be viewed together when directly looking at the property. Even if this were not the case, the use of yellow stock brick plinth would preserve the character, appearance and significance of the conservation area.

The proposed amendments to the landscaping scheme are to remove the semi-circular planting at the front of the site and replace it with a concrete drive with cropped granite setts and additional planting of hedging to the sides and front of the dwelling. I have not been made aware of other examples of landscaping schemes similar to the approved layout that inform the character of the area and the alterations to the scheme are more akin to the local character and appearance. I am therefore satisfied that the loss of the semi-circular area of planting and the planting of additional hedging to the sides of the dwelling and the front would preserve the character of the conservation area.

For these reasons I conclude the proposal would preserve the character, appearance and significance of the conservation area. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with Policies 26 and 28 of the HLP and the Act.

I have varied condition no.3 to make specific reference to the new plans considered by this appeal. By varying condition no.3 of the permission, condition no.2 which specifically refers to materials being in accordance with the approved plans falls into alignment as condition no.2 and no.3 are linked via the wording of both.

In allowing the appeal I must also vary the wording of condition no.1 to ensure the time frame for implementation of the permission remains the same as the original permission.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed and grant a new planning permission with reference to the plans as proposed but retaining those conditions from the previous permission that appear still to be relevant. I have referred to the date of the original permission in the time frame for commencing development.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the 25th March 2025.

The proposed development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the materials detailed on the plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans drawing number 2033/02 [name].

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, no window or other opening (other than those shown on the submitted and approved plans) shall be formed in the flank wall(s) of the building hereby permitted, unless specific permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

The windows inserted on the flank walls shall be obscure – glazed, and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7m above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.

The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority.

The soft landscaped areas and front hedge behind the boundary wall shall be be implemented in the first planting season following completion of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The hard surface hereby approved (including any sub-base) shall be made of porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. End of Schedule