Appeal 6001232

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part two storey, part single storey rear / side extensions with new roof form over, relocation of entrance to front elevation and changes to external finishes and fenestrations at [site address] , Rainham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref: P0245.25 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 800A (Planning Drawings) and 1:1250 Site Location Plan.

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

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 first-floor windows shall be inserted in the flank (south) elevation.

The roof area of the single-storey rear extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property, [address], Rainham.

The appeal site is a detached property of individual design and appearance located along a predominantly residential road comprising a variety of dwellings of various designs, sizes and ages including terraced and semi-detached properties. Number 14 is located to the south-west of the appeal site and comprises an end of terrace two storey dwelling. It has a single storey rear extension across its width with patio to the rear.

The two-storey side element of the proposed extension would extend to a depth of around 8 metres, set back from the front elevation of the host dwelling and extending to the rear just beyond the rear elevation of the single storey element of the adjoining property. It would extend to a greater depth relative to the first-floor element of the dwelling at No. 14 but would not encroach the 45 degree line from the nearest first floor window of that property, which is in any event serves a bathroom not a bedroom.

Whilst this two-storey element would present a blank upper elevation to the common boundary, it would be set back from it by around one metre and would extend only marginally beyond the depth of the single storey element at No. 14. The Council refers to the [name] and [name] (2011) (SPD) as suggesting a two metre ‘set-in’ from the boundary, but this is for attached dwellings which is not the case here.

The proposed single storey rear element would extend deeper into the site but only the upper part would be seen above the boundary fence between the two properties. The proposal also includes a hipped roof over the two-storey side element which would be higher than the ridge of the existing dwelling. The overall impact would be to increase the bulk of the dwelling, but it would remain proportionate and of a complementary design. The hipped roof design would slope away from the adjoining dwelling and thus minimise its impact.

I am aware of a previous appeal decision relating to similar but larger additions at the appeal site1. This included a two-storey side / rear extension that extended to a greater depth at the rear. The Inspector in that case noted that it would introduce a two-storey wall very close to the patio. As noted above, the depth of the two-storey side element has been reduced such that only a small part would adjoin the patio, the majority would be opposite the single-storey rear addition and the dwelling itself at No. 14. The patio would be adjoined by the proposed single-storey rear element the majority of which would be screened by the boundary wall.

Overall, whilst the proposed extensions would no doubt be seen from the garden area of No. 14 and introduce two-storey elements closer to the boundary than is currently the case, their overall size and relative position would not result in an intrusive or overbearing form of development.

Overall, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property, No. [address]. The proposal would therefore accord with Policies 7 and 26 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) and Policies D1 and D4 of The London Plan 2021 which, amongst other things, seek high quality design which ensures that the amenity and quality of life of existing and future residents is not adversely impacted 1 APP/B5480/D/24/3346212 and that new development is fully integrated with neighbouring development. It also satisfies the SPD which seeks to ensure that extensions do not detract from the character of the host dwelling nor unacceptably reduce the amenity of neighbouring properties.

In addition to the standard time condition and a condition to refer to the approved plans in the interests of clarity, a condition to ensure that the materials to be used match those used in the existing building is necessary in the interests of the visual amenity of the area. The Council has also suggested conditions to prevent additional windows being inserted in the flank elevation and the use of the flat roof over the single storey element as a balcony or amenity area. I agree that these would both be necessary to prevent overlooking of the neighbouring dwelling.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.