Appeal 6001387

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 description above is taken from the application form and whilst it varies from the decision notice, the ability of any party to make their case in respect of the appeal scheme would not be prejudiced by me referring to it in these terms.

The Council does not object to the proposed front dormer window or hipped to gable roof, I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focusses on the remaining elements of the appeal scheme. The main issues for which are their effect on a) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No. 195) with specific regard to outlook; and b) the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is separated from No. 195 by a narrow passageway. The majority of the plot has been developed, and a single storey extension runs along the side boundary. Although the passageway provides a modest degree of separation, the proposed first and second floor extensions would nonetheless represent a substantial increase in built form along this boundary. The development would create a long and tall expanse of built form that would significantly exceed the scale of the existing arrangement. As a result, the extension would appear overly dominant when viewed from No. 195, giving rise to a pronounced sense of enclosure. This increased mass and height would have an overbearing effect and would lead to an unacceptably poor standard of outlook for the occupiers of No. 195, particularly from their ground and first floor rear windows.

The appellant has submitted a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment which concludes that the proposal would remain within the relevant thresholds set out in the BRE guidance. I do not dispute those technical findings. However, compliance with the BRE metrics does not in itself demonstrate that no material harm would arise. The BRE guidance is clear that its numerical tests relate specifically to the potential loss of daylight and sunlight and do not address other aspects of residential amenity, including the perceptual effects of increased massing, enclosure, or visual dominance.

In this case, while the evidence indicates that the development would not result in unacceptable reductions in daylight or sunlight levels, the scale and height of the proposals would nevertheless give rise to the above effects, and even with BRE compliance, the development would still lead to an appreciable deterioration in the quality of outlook for neighbouring residents.

I have been made aware that neighbouring properties Nos. 195 and [address] have been granted planning permission for first floor and ground floor extensions. If built, those additions could improve the outlook from rear first floor windows by altering the existing pattern of rear projections. However, there is no certainty that these permissions will be implemented. Neither the appellant nor the decision‐maker has any control over whether the neighbouring owners will exercise their consents, and there is no mechanism within any planning permission I could recommend granting that would require those schemes to be constructed.

Any future improvement to outlook therefore relies on actions outside the control of the appellant and falls beyond the scope of this appeal. Even if the neighbouring consents were implemented, the effect of the proposed extension on ground‐floor rooms at No. 195 would remain unacceptably harmful, as it is at this level that the sense of enclosure and visual dominance would be most acutely experienced. The proposals would therefore conflict with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016– 2031 (2021) (LP) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that the amenity and quality of life of existing and future residents is not adversely impacted.

The appeal property comprises an end‐terrace commercial unit within a short run of four broadly similar buildings. The ground floor accommodates a restaurant, with a self‐contained flat above accessed from the rear via an external staircase off the side passageway. The surrounding area is mixed in character, with retail uses typically at ground‐floor level and residential accommodation above, forming a coherent and legible pattern of development.

The appeal scheme proposes substantial two‐storey and three‐storey rear additions. Owing to their depth, height and overall massing, these extensions would form conspicuously large and bulky additions to the host building. Their scale would erode the recognisable form of the original terrace, introducing an extensive flat‐roofed profile that would bear little relationship to the original or existing roofscape. The proposal would also incorporate a large expanse of glass‐block walling, a material not characteristic of the terrace or the wider street scene. This feature would accentuate the visual prominence of the additions and would appear discordant with the established palette of materials.

The terrace, particularly adjoining property Number [address] (No. 199), has undergone significant incremental alteration. However, the presence of unsympathetic extensions elsewhere does not justify further harmful development. The existing alterations at No. 199 do not represent contextually appropriate design and do not contribute positively to the character of the host building or the wider terrace. As such, they cannot be taken as a precedent for permitting a proposal that would similarly fail to respect its context acceptably.

For these reasons, the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the wider terrace. It would therefore conflict with Policy 26 of the LP and with guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework, which, amongst other things, seek to ensure new development responds to local distinctiveness and respects the established scale, massing and rhythm of the surrounding built form.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not 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.