Appeal 6004049

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) the effect on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, in particular as regards odour.

On the first issue, I saw on my visit that located to the rear of [address] premises the existing flue is of a noticeably large size rising a significant height above the flat roofs of nearby outbuildings and extensions, and is especially bulky compared with a couple of other freestanding flues in the locality. Even allowing for the utilitarian townscape with many extensions of no design merit and visually intrusive equipment cabinets, the flue draws the eye in its context as a significantly jarring feature.

The appeal scheme would offer some improvement from the existing situation as it is proposed to reduce the height of the flue so that it terminates 4.6m above ground level and 2m above the roof of the rear extension. In addition, there would be the introduction of wooden cladding as a screen and a non-reflective finish to the flue.

Notwithstanding these measures, the flue and its screening would remain an incongruous addition in this location and in views from the car park have an adverse visual effect on the host property and the wider section of terrace. In making this assessment it is not appropriate to give material weight to the above-mentioned improvement as the structure was unlawfully installed, albeit by a previous owner. On balance on this issue, I consider that there would be unacceptable harm caused to the character and appearance of the locality in conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 (‘the Local Plan’). Appeal Decision Ref, 6004049

Turing to the second main issue, the Council’s concern is that the siting of the flue would be likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity of local residents as regards odour. The Council maintains the position that it took in respect of planning application Ref. P0057.25 which was refused in May 2025. This is that, as made clear in paragraph 8.3.3 of the Local Plan in support of Policy 14, ‘where there is residential accommodation on upper floors, the Council will normally require ducting to discharge (cooking smells and fumes) above eaves levels ....’.

I have noted the details of the appellant’s Odour risk assessment prepared in February 2024 which is argued to be highly effective in the filtration of odours. However, it remains the position of the Public Protection Officer that this does not warrant retaining the equipment in its current position as an exception to Policy 14, whilst there is also concern as to the equipment’s proximity to the external staircase used by residents to access first floor flats. Overall, as well as conflicting with Policy 14, the flue’s retention would run counter to the objectives of Local Plan Policy 7 which seeks to ensure a good quality of residential design and amenity.

In respect of the appeal application, a neighbouring business owner has objected and refers to occasions when there has been ‘a noticeable cooking odour’ at the rear entrance of their premises, despite the installation of the extraction system. I have no reason to reject this evidence. Furthermore, the proposed reduction of the flue height has the potential to increase the future incidence of odours. And whilst I am aware that the appellants consider there is a problem of proximity of windows in installing above-eaves extraction, from my observation of the rear elevation of the terrace I am not convinced that this is the case with a smaller size of flue.

From all that I have seen and read, I consider that in respect of the two main issues of the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the effect of the potential for odour on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, the Council is correct to resist a scheme that is clearly not in compliance with Local Plan Policies 7 and 14. There would similarly be a conflict with Government policy in paragraph 135f) of the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024.

For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal fails.