Appeal 6003336

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for “proposed single storey ground floor part rear extension”, at [site address] , [name] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 25/01464/HSE), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of

The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing appearance or overshadowing).

The appeal site is located in a suburban area in the eastern part of [name], to the west of Romford. [address] is a branch road off [address], which continues as [address] and which is a through route connecting Romford and [name]. [address] itself is a residential road, lined with mature trees and characterised by a mixture of house types, including short terraces, semi-detached and detached houses. The road also provides an access to the ‘[name], however.

Number [address] is a typical two-storey house in a short terrace, with a pitched roof and a projecting bay on the front elevation. At the rear, a “box dormer” extension has been added at roof level and a relatively modern single-storey extension, with a flat roof, has been added to the ground floor living space. This is a large extension, taking up the width of the plot. The property has the benefit of a good-sized back garden, however, as do its immediate neighbours. Appeal Decision: 6003336

It is now proposed to add a further flat-roofed extension at the rear of the ground floor, although this would not occupy the whole width of the plot.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles.

In particular, Policy D4 of ‘The London Plan’ (dated March 2021) focusses on “delivering good design”, as a general aim, while Policy D6 sets out some more specific criteria in relation to “housing quality and standards”.

Similarly, in the ‘London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2020-2037’ (which is dated September 2024), Policy DMD1 is aimed at “securing high quality design” as a broad aim, while Policy DMD5 is directed at design issues in the context of “householder extensions and alterations”.

The Council’s ‘[name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document’ (adopted in February 2012) is also relevant but it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan. It also points out the need to have regard to neighbours’ amenities.

The proposed extension would project further into the back garden of the property than the existing building, but a pleasant garden space would be retained. The existing garden is sufficiently large to accommodate the increased building footprint.

The new flat-roofed extension would be added to the larger existing flat-roofed extension and, in combination, a large structure would result. Nevertheless, it would not have an impact on the streetscene and would be visible only from nearby private properties. It would be only a single-storey construction and I am not persuaded that it would be unduly dominant or unacceptable in architectural terms.

The effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of neighbours would also be limited.

I note that an extension has been built at the rear of number 28 (although it is not shown on the submitted [name] site plan and block plan). The new extension at number 30 would introduce a blank side wall on this boundary but it would not be excessive in relation to the neighbour’s existing extension. The new wall would be sited on the south of the neighbour’s garden, adjacent to the new rear wall of the house, and it would have some overshadowing effect. Even so, that garden is also of a reasonable size and I am not persuaded that the harm to the neighbour’s amenities would be so serious as to justify a refusal of planning permission.

The proposed new extension at number 30 would be set back from the boundary with the neighbouring property to the south (number 32). Thus, although it would project further beyond the rear of the neighbouring house, it would have only a Appeal Decision: 6003336 limited impact on outlook or shadowing, especially bearing in mind that it would be only a single-storey extension. Again, therefore, I am convinced that the scheme would not cause undue harm to the residential amenities of this neighbour.

Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension would be a useful addition to the accommodation at number [address]. The contribution that the appeal scheme would make to economic activity and the provision of residential accommodation in the locality, even though it would be limited, weighs in favour of the appeal. I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with the Development Plan, in principle.

In short, I am persuaded that the scheme before me would not have an undue effect on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings; nor would it cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenities of neighbours. Hence, it can properly be permitted, subject to conditions and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.

I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and I have concluded that standard conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained.

I have noted that the submitted drawing D05, which shows proposed flank elevations, indicates that a side-facing window shown on the southern side elevation should be “obscure-glazed and non-opening”, in principle. The proposed extension is of single-storey construction, however, and I do not believe that windows at this level need to be obscured in order to protect neighbours’ privacy. I have not imposed a condition to this effect, therefore.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing number D01 ([name]); drawing number D02 ([name]); drawing number D03 ([name]); drawing number D04 ([name]); drawing number D05 ([name]); drawing number D06 (Proposed Section AA); drawing number D07 Rev1 (Block Plan); drawing number D08 Rev1 (Site Location);

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