Single storey rear extension with an overall depth of 6m, a maximum height of 3.44m, and an eaves height of 3m

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2025 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000053 7 Priory Grove, Romford, Havering RM3 9AS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part , Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Syed Kashif Zafar against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is Y0221.24. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension with an overall depth of 6m, a maximum height of 3.44m, and an eaves height of 3m. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘GPDO’) for single storey rear extension with an overall depth of 6m, a maximum height of 3.44m, and an eaves height of 3m at 7 Priory Grove, Romford, Havering RM3 9AS, in accordance with the application Ref Y0221.24 and the details submitted with it including: Site Location and Block Plan: Drawing number 18/926/010 and Proposed plans and elevations: Drawing number 18/926/012, and subject to the following additional conditions: 1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order), no window or other opening shall be installed in the flank walls of the extension hereby permitted. 2) The roof of the extension hereby permitted shall at no time be converted to or be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity or sitting out area. Preliminary Matters 2. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse, subject to a number of limitations and conditions. 3. There is nothing to suggest that the proposed development would not meet the relevant limitation and conditions under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. 4. However, where any objections are received to a proposal, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority (‘LPA’) to assess the impact of the proposed development Appeal Decision 6000053 2 on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. 5. In this case an initial objection from a neighbour was received, at appeal further information has been provided which suggests that this objection was not from that neighbour. Even so, because an initial objection was received at the application stage and the LPA determined the application on this basis, I have also considered the appeal on the same basis. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the occupiers of adjoining dwellings, with particular regard to 5 Priory Grove (‘No 5’) in respect of overshadowing, daylight/sunlight and outlook. Reasons 7. The appeal property is a two storey, semi-detached house. This property has previously been extended to the rear with a conservatory. This has a maximum depth of approximately 4.3m and a maximum height of about 3.2m; and extends along the shared boundary with No. 5. 8. The appeal scheme proposes the demolition of the conservatory and the construction of a new single-storey, full width, rear extension with a depth of 6m. 9. The appeal property is located to the south of No. 5. Even so, the boundary between this and the appeal property comprises a fence with a height of about 2m and then beyond this is the extant conservatory. 10. Whilst the maximum height of the proposed extension is about 3.4m, this includes its roof lantern, which would be at the centre of the extension and setback from the shared boundary with No. 5. The maximum height of the shallow pitched roof of the extension, along the shared boundary would be about 3.1m. The roof then slopes down to about 3m at the eaves. As such, the height of the proposed extension would not be significantly taller than the existing conservatory. 11. The proposed extension would project 6m beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 5, failing to meet the 4m guideline in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document Adopted 2011. Even so, this is guidance. Moreover, in part, the existing conservatory already exceeds this depth and beyond this is the existing boundary fence. 12. Therefore, and relative to the existing conservatory and fence, I am unpersuaded that the larger proposed extension, would result in any material reduction in daylight /sunlight or increase in overshadowing in respect of No. 5. 13. Furthermore, No. 5 incorporates a wide and deep garden, resulting in a very open and spacious aspect to the rear. Although the proposed extension would result in some increase in the sense of enclosure to the rear of No. 5, within the overall open context, I do not find that this would be perceived as excessively overbearing. 14. Accordingly, the proposed extension would not have any adverse effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 5. Appeal Decision 6000053 3 15. From my observations at the site visit, the degree of separation between 9 Priory Grove and the appeal site is such that the proposed extension would not have any adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of this neighbouring property. 16. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining dwellings, with particular regard to overshadowing, loss of daylight/sunlight and outlook. Conditions 17. Paragraph A.3. of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, sets out the conditions subject to which development is permitted by Class A. Of these, only one is relevant, namely, that the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. 18. Paragraph A.4.(11) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, further sets out that where prior approval is required the development must be carried out in accordance with the details approved by LPA. This also applies to my Decision. 19. Paragraph A.4.(12) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, allows me to grant prior approval unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. To this end and to safeguard the amenity of adjoining occupiers from overlooking, I have specified additional conditions removing permitted development rights for window or other opening in the flank walls of the proposed extension and the use of its roof as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity or sitting out area. Conclusion 20. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. M Aqbal INSPECTOR