London Borough of Havering appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Havering?
See the recorded character concerns and the site details behind an allowed side extension.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 211 of 331
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 84
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 126
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 169
- of 212 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Havering LPA (51.563125, 0.220447). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Havering appeal findings
Street-scene harm and a staggered building line
The selected examples are conclusion-only except appeal 2614, which gives fuller site detail.
Counted against appeals
Harm findings for walls, extensions and dwellings
Front wall and gates
The Inspector concluded that the replacement front wall and gates would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Two-storey side and rear extension
The Inspector concluded that the two-storey side and rear extension would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Pair of new dwellings
The Inspector concluded that the proposed pair of dwellings would significantly harm the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Site details in an allowed side extension
A staggered building line
The house already sat closer to the road than homes facing it, leaving the building line staggered.
A gap behind the house
The gap to the dwelling behind meant its closer road position had little impact on the street scene.
Replacement shed treated as enhancement
The Inspector described replacing the existing shed as an enhancement.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal explain exactly how your design harms the street scene?
- Is your building line already staggered compared with nearby homes?
- Does a gap behind your house reduce its road impact?
These selected Havering examples do not show the full site analysis behind the dismissed conclusions. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
8 November 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 where they require proposals to respect the character of the local area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
2 September 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey side extension to create study and gym space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would comply with the guidance in the Havering ‘[name] and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (SPD) for single storey side extensions to be set back from the main building line to create a break in the façade. However, the proposal would conflict with the requirement for the flank wall to be set back at least one metre from the back edge of the footway and to not project forward of the building line of properties along the adjoining street in order to maintain the building line. However, the appeal property is already set closer to [address] than the dwellings which front it, and therefore the ‘building line’ is already staggered. The gap between the appeal property and the dwelling behind is such that the difference in proximity to the road has little impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. The replacement of the existing shed would be an enhancement.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
28 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for replacement front wall and gates.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore conflicts with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021, which collectively seek to promote high quality design that respect and complement the distinctive qualities, identity and character of the site and local area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
15 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as two storey side and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of area. There is conflict with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) which amongst other things seek to ensure developments are of high quality design which complement the local streetscene.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 1
4 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of the existing structure on site and construction of a pair of dwellings with communal amenity space, associated car parking, cycle and refuse storage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would have a significant adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The scheme would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the preceding reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed
Paragraph 20 · Source page 3