Ground floor infill extension and roof extension to create first floor to both annex buildings

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2025 by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000278 11 Burntwood Avenue, Hornchurch RM11 3JD • 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 Herjit Kataria against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0244.25. • The development proposed is ‘Ground floor infill extension and roof extension to create first floor to both annex buildings’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘Ground floor infill extension and roof extension to create first floor to both annex buildings’ at 11 Burntwood Avenue, Hornchurch RM11 3JD, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0244.25, subject to the following conditions. 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: Location and Proposed Block Plan, ref 22-740-P21; Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans, ref 22-740-P03 & 22-740-P04; Proposed Roof Plan, ref 22-740-P05; Existing and Proposed Side Elevations, ref 22-740-P06; Existing and Proposed Front Elevations, ref 22-740-P07; Existing and Proposed Rear Elevations, ref 22-740-P08; Existing and Proposed Elevations Height Comparison, ref 22-740-P11; Existing and Proposed Side Elevations, ref 22-740-P12. 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on living conditions of nearby residents. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site includes two detached, single storey annex buildings used as ancillary living accommodation to the rear of the host dwelling. I understand that the annexes are occupied by members of the extended family of the appellant. Burntwood Avenue generally comprises large, detached dwellings which sit in generous plots. The proposal seeks to extend both buildings with ground floor infill and first floor extensions to create additional living space. Appeal Decision 6000278 2 4. My attention is drawn to the Council’s ‘Residential Extensions and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) (adopted 2011). This advises that outbuildings should be subordinate in scale to the existing dwelling and to the plot. Factors such as scale, height, proximity to boundaries, roof design, finishing materials and prominence in the street scene or rear garden environment should be considered and outbuildings should not detract from the character of the area and be unobtrusively sited to the side and rear of the existing dwelling. 5. I understand that the Council does not take issue with the ground floor infill elements of the scheme. I see no reason to disagree. As such, the main concern is the additional 1.7m roof height and what could potentially be incongruous in the immediate vicinity. The existing buildings are single-storey and following the changes would present as two-storey from the front. However, the increase in height would be minimal. While there is concern as to the spacing between the two structures, permission was granted by the Council in this location for single storey annexes and the space between the structures is not proposed to change. Moreover, they would still be subordinate to the host property, located to the rear and predominantly visible only from within the garden rather than being prominent in the street scene. 6. Taken together, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and accord with policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (LP) (adopted November 2021). These seek to ensure, among other things, that development proposals are informed by and respect the distinctive qualities, character and features of the site and local area. The proposal would also accord with the SPD and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which includes paragraph 135 which states that development proposals are sympathetic to local character. Living Conditions 7. The annexes are positioned close to the eastern boundary of the appeal site with No.13. I understand that planning permission has been granted for 5 dwellings on that plot with 3 of them located close to the appeal site. However, I have no information on this development before me, such as where precisely the dwellings would be located, their scale, orientation or proximity to the appeal proposal. Although the annexes are positioned close to the boundary fence, the extended roof would maintain the flat section to the rear, with the additional mass rising away from the boundary line to mitigate any loss out outlook. As such, I do not consider this would be overbearing to occupiers of the proposed dwellings adjacent based on the evidence before me. 8. My attention is also drawn to the adjacent property at No.3 Tall Trees Close to the north. The decision notice references overlooking of the rear garden of that property, although the Council’s officer report specially states that no overlooking to any properties would occur. To my mind, the side elevation of the northernmost annex facing towards the rear of No.3 would not include windows at first floor level while those to the front would be at a more acute angle and a suitable distance to avoid this issue. 9. I have had regard to the submissions of the occupier of No.3, although the Council does not raise concerns based on matters of additional light. Based on all that I have seen and read I see no reason to disagree. Although the height of the Appeal Decision 6000278 3 annexes will increase, this is minor as I have established, and from the garden of No.3 this would occupy a small proportion of the outlook from that area. Although I agree that two-storey annexes are somewhat unusual in residential gardens, permission exists for the buildings as they stand and the increase in height over the existing situation from the evidence before me is not obtrusive. As such outlook would not be unduly harmed from the garden area of No.3. 10. I am advised of further concerns relating to the intensification of the use of the annexes and effects on neighbours, although the Council’s officer report does not elaborate on what exactly the issue is. It seemingly accepts that the buildings as they exist do not give rise to harm to living conditions, but that the additional space would. Moreover, there is no reference to whether this relates to noise concerns, although I note the comments of occupiers of No.3 with regards to this matter. To my mind, the addition of one bedroom is unlikely to increase noise from comings and goings to an unacceptable degree over the existing baseline of residential activity. 11. Taken together, there would be no harm to the living conditions of potential future occupiers of the approved dwellings on the plot of No.13 Burntwood Avenue or occupiers of No.3 Tall Trees Close with regards to outlook, overlooking or noise. This would accord with policies 7 and 26 of the LP. These seek, among other things, to ensure that development proposals ensure that the amenity and quality of life of existing and future residents is not adversely impacted. Conditions 12. For the avoidance of doubt, I have imposed the standard time commencement, approved plans and matching materials conditions to ensure clarity for all concerned and ensure the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area is protected. 13. I have had regard to the suggestion of the Council to impose further conditions which would relate to the insertion of windows to the flank elevations of the buildings, and that the garden shall not be subdivided or additional pedestrian or vehicular accesses created into the site. The reasons given were to ensure living conditions of occupiers of adjacent properties are not harmed and to ensure that the annexes remain ancillary to the host dwelling. However, a window in the side elevation or additional accesses would be contrary to the approved plans and require planning permission regardless. As such, it was not necessary to attach these conditions. Conclusion 14. The proposal would accord with the development plan taken as a whole and advice in the SPD. As such, the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions given. C McDonagh INSPECTOR