Appeal 6007976

The appeal is dismissed.

During my site visit, I observed that the appeal dwelling has undergone several rear alterations, including a ground-floor rear extension, first-floor rear extension and rear dormer addition, all of which are shown on the submitted plans. Whilst these alterations form part of the physical context of the site and are relevant to my assessment of the visual effects of the proposal, the appeal before me relates solely to the proposed first-floor rear extension. Accordingly, I make no findings in respect of the lawfulness or planning status of the existing development at the site.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal relates to a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling located within a predominantly residential area. The wider terrace retains a clear uniformity in terms of scale, proportions, and architectural appearance. In particular, the rear roofscapes largely continue to display a recognisable eaves line, sloping roof profile and modestly scaled dormers, all of which contribute positively to the character of the terrace and the immediate area.

The appeal dwelling has already undergone several rear alterations. As a result, much of the original form, proportions and legibility of the rear elevation and roofscape have been diminished.

The proposal would comprise a first-floor rear extension with a pitched roof form, projecting to a depth broadly consistent with the existing single-storey rear extension and extending across more than half the width of the dwelling.

The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (the SPD) advises that extensions should remain subordinate to the host dwelling and preserve the rhythm and uniformity of terraces. The SPD advises that two-storey rear extensions to terraced dwellings will generally require careful assessment due to their potential effect on terrace character and uniformity.

By extending across a substantial proportion of the rear elevation and projecting to a depth comparable with the existing ground-floor rear extension, combined with its pitched roof, the resulting form and scale of development would appear visually top-heavy, disproportionate to the modest scale of the host dwelling, and unduly dominant. Consequently, it would fail to read as a subordinate addition to the host dwelling.

Furthermore, when viewed alongside the existing first-floor rear extension and rear dormer addition, the proposal would contribute to an excessive accumulation of built development at the rear of the dwelling, further diminishing the legibility of the dwelling’s original design and proportions and detracting from its original simple and uniform character. Collectively, the additions would appear unduly dominant and incongruous within the context of the dwelling and wider terrace.

Although views from the public realm would be limited, the proposal would nevertheless be readily perceptible from adjoining private gardens and neighbouring rear-facing windows, particularly to the north, where its excessive scale and cumulative bulk would be clearly appreciable.

I have considered the examples referred to by the appellant, including development at [address]. Whilst these examples indicate that some rear alterations and roof extensions exist within the wider area, the evidence before me does not establish their planning circumstances or demonstrate that they are directly comparable in terms of scale, form and overall impact. In any event, each proposal must be assessed on its own planning merits having regard to its specific site context and cumulative impact. The existence of other altered properties within the area does not, in itself, justify further harmful development.

The appellant refers to discussions during the application process concerning a possible flat roof alternative. However, I am required to determine the appeal based on the scheme before me.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) which requires new development to be of a high-quality design and relate to its local context. The proposal would also conflict with the guidance of the SPD which seeks to ensure that extensions remain subordinate to the host dwelling and respect the established character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The Council has raised no substantive concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, including with regard to loss of privacy and daylight. Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree with that assessment. However, this is a neutral matter and does not weigh in favour of the appeal proposal, nor does it outweigh or overcome the harm I have identified in respect of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

From the evidence, my decision has the potential to affect the appellant’s rights to family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I have had due regard to the appellant’s or their family’s human rights. However, set against the well-established and legitimate aim of the protection of the public interest, in this case safeguarding the appearance and character of the surrounding area, the harm caused by the appeal development outweighs the benefit of securing additional living space. I conclude that there would be no violation of the appellant’s or their family’s human rights. It is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are insufficient material considerations to indicate that the proposed development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.