Side Double and Single rear with part first floor Double Extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 May 2025 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 May 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000073 60 Parkland Avenue, Upminster RM14 2EU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ruben Kandola against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P1321.24. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “Side Double and Single rear with part first floor Double Extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The Existing Plans & Elevations1 show a hip-to-gable roof extension and a rear dormer at 60 Parkland Avenue (No 60). The Council assessed these works to be substantially completed. Irrespective of the planning status of these works, which is not a matter under consideration in this appeal, I have adopted the same approach as the Council in considering these works as not forming part of the proposed development. 3. The Existing Plans & Elevations also show a ground-floor rear extension at No 60 which the Council have stated relates to the grant of prior approval at No 60 for a single storey rear extension with an overall depth of 6 metres2. As these works have not been substantially completed, and as part of the proposed first-floor rear extension would be sited upon the roof of the ground-floor rear extension, I have followed the approach of the Council in considering the ground-floor rear extension as forming part of the proposed development. 4. Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council's decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as, "Two storey side extension, part single storey part two storey rear extension with conversion of garage". I have used this description in my consideration of the appeal since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. 1 Drawing No. HD/GB/0256-002 2 Y0193.24 Appeal Decision 6000073 2 Reasons 6. No 60 is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling, situated in an attractive residential area where semi-detached and detached dwellings predominate. The appellant has made reference to nearby developments, but no specific examples have been provided. I observed that, although variation exists, the largely symmetrical pairs of semi-detached dwellings along Parkland Avenue are broadly consistent in terms of their size and scale. Gaps between these pairs above ground-floor level are common along Parkland Avenue, which provide an important function in breaking up the mass of built form in the area. 7. The proposed development would not extend No 60 beyond the boundaries of the plot, and the building lines along Parkland Avenue would be maintained. Nevertheless, the proposed development would incorporate a 2-storey side extension, which would be built up to the boundary with 62 Parkland Avenue (No 62) and would only be set-down from the ridge of No 60 by a minimal amount. Its set-back from the principal elevation of No 60 at first-floor level would conflict with the guidance given in paragraph 6.6 of the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2011) (SPD) which provides that, amongst other things, 2-storey side extensions should be set back at least one metre from the front wall of the dwelling at first-floor level. 8. Consequently, although matching materials would be used throughout the proposed development, the size and scale of No 60 would no longer be reflective of that at 58 Parkland Avenue. The lack of symmetry between each semi-detached dwelling comprising the pair and the visually unbalanced appearance of the pair in the street scene would undermine the identity of the local area. Due to the markedly increased bulk and massing of No 60, and the insufficient set-back from the principal elevation at first-floor level referred to above, No 60 would appear overly-dominant and prominent in the street scene when seen from Parkland Avenue. 9. Moreover, the expansion of No 60 up to the boundary with No 62 would not assist in maintaining the characteristic gaps between neighbouring pairs of semi- detached dwellings, which is encouraged by paragraph 6.5 of the SPD. The proposed development would weaken the established pattern of development in the area in this respect. 10. The lack of any gap between the proposed first-floor rear extension and No 62 would be contrary to paragraph 5.13 of the SPD which provides that, amongst other things, 2-storey rear extensions should be set in from the common boundary with any attached dwelling by not less than 2 metres. I observed that much of the proposed development above ground-floor level would be visible from The Grove. The proposed first-floor rear extension would appear as a visually intrusive feature from these views, due its bulky and box-like aesthetic which would jar with the appearance of the first-floor rear elevations of nearby dwellings, most of which have not been extended. Soft landscaping (which could be required by a planning condition) would not be sufficient to adequately mitigate the adverse impacts identified. 11. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would conflict with parts i. and vii. of Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2016 Appeal Decision 6000073 3 – 2031) (adopted 2021) (Local Plan) which provides that the Council will promote high quality design that contributes to the creation of successful places in Havering by supporting development proposals that are informed by, respect and complement the distinctive qualities, identity, character and geographical features of the site and local area and respond to distinctive local building forms and patterns of development and respect the visual integrity and established scale, massing, rhythm of the building, frontages, group of buildings or the building line and height of the surrounding physical context. 12. Policy D4 of the London Plan (published 2021) primarily deals with the methods by which design is analysed, scrutinised, and maintained, and so is not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, Policy 26 of the Local Plan is sufficient for me to come to a view on this main issue. Other Matters 13. I have referred above to the grant of prior approval at No 60 for a single storey rear extension with an overall depth of 6 metres. The proposed development as a whole would be substantially different in terms of its bulk and scale, and accordingly its impact, compared to that approval. As a result, the existing approval does not alter my findings on the main issue above. 14. The appellant has referred to the incorporation of conditions or amendments to the proposed development to ensure its acceptability. However, it is outside my remit in determining this appeal to attempt to suggest any particular amendments. No specific planning conditions have put forward. In any event, conditions (including those relating to soft landscaping) would not overcome the harm identified on the main issue above. Other Considerations and Planning Balance 15. The proposed development would optimise the use of the plot, but the scale of the land use benefits accruing to the local area in this regard would not be significant. The proposed development would improve the living accommodation available at No 60. However, this would mainly be a private benefit. These benefits have been given little weight in support of the proposed development. 16. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR