Single storey rear extension and first floor side extension following conversion of existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 November 2025 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000200 65 Shepherds Hill, Romford RM3 0NP • 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 Antoine Vavasseur against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P1466.24. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension and first floor side extension following conversion of existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension and first floor side extension following conversion of existing garage at 65 Shepherds Hill, Romford RM3 0NP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P1466.24, 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 drawings: Site Location Plan, dated September 2024; Proposed Front Elevation dated, October 2024; Proposed Left Elevation, dated October 2024; Proposed Right Elevation, dated October 2024; Proposed Rear Elevation, dated October 2024; Proposed Ground Floor; dated October 2024; Proposed First Floor, dated October 2024; and Proposed Roof Plan, dated October 2024. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the flank elevations of the extensions hereby permitted. Preliminary Matter 2. Following the submission of this appeal another appeal at this property was dismissed in 2025 (the 2025 appeal) for a two-storey side and rear extension and a single storey rear extension and front pitched canopy roof following demolition of existing garage. The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the dismissed scheme in relation to this proposal and any comments received have been taken into account. Appeal Decision 6000200 2 Main Issues 3. The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 63 Shepherds Hill with regard to outlook. Reasons Whether Inappropriate Development 4. The appeal property comprises a large, detached, two-storey dwelling with a half- hipped roof and an attached single-storey garage. It is situated within ribbon development in a built-up area. The surrounding dwellings are also detached but vary in scale and design, resulting in differing sized gaps between properties, although houses are typically set within large plots with houses generally set back behind large gardens and driveways. 5. The proposal includes the conversion of the existing garage and the construction of a two-storey extension above it, projecting approximately 3 metres beyond the current rear elevation. A single-storey rear extension of around 5 metres in depth is also proposed, along with a mono-pitched porch spanning most of the front elevation. The Council initially stated that the side and rear extensions were larger than indicated by the appellant; however, subsequent correspondence confirms that the Council’s figures were incorrect. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to dispute the appellant’s calculations. 6. Policy G2 of the London Plan states that subject to national planning policy tests, the enhancement of the Green Belt to provide appropriate multi-function beneficial uses for Londoners should be supported. Paragraph 154c) states that the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building would be not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 7. The proposed two-storey side extension would be approximately half the width of the host dwelling, set back from the front elevation, and narrower than the existing garage to be converted. Its roof would be significantly lower than the main ridge and hipped in form, with a mono-pitched roof above the ground floor conversion. Given the substantial scale of the host dwelling, the modest width and set-back of the extension, and its limited rear projection of around 3 metres, the extension would remain subordinate to the host building generally in accordance with the advice in the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Given its modest scale, even when viewed alongside the garage conversion, the side extension would not appear disproportionate, and the host dwelling would remain the dominant element. 8. The SPD advises that rear extensions exceeding 4 metres in depth should comply with the 45-degree rule from the property boundary to protect neighbouring amenity. The submitted evidence demonstrates compliance with this guidance Appeal Decision 6000200 3 which would support that a deeper extension could be constructed. Considering the large size of the host dwelling and the single-storey scale of the addition, the rear extension would appear inferior in size to the host dwelling as advised by the SPD. 9. The proposed porch would replace the existing porch, albeit wider and featuring a mono-pitched roof rather than a flat roof. Due to its limited size, the porch would appear subordinate and would not dominate the front elevation. 10. Collectively, the extensions would represent an approximate 30% increase in the volume of the original building. However, as these additions would be distributed around the property and largely at ground floor level, their visual impact would be limited. Whilst the two-storey side extension would increase the depth of the host dwelling at first floor level, it would only do so by around 3 metres and the modest scale of this would ensure the building would not appear disproportionately deeper within the street scene. The reduction in the width of the side extension at first floor level would contribute towards reducing the appreciated bulk of this addition. Taking into account the size of the original building, along with the design and siting of the proposed and existing extensions, I conclude that the scheme, alongside existing additions to the property, would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 11. An appeal was dismissed for a first-floor side extension at this property in 1999 which based on the information before me was due to concerns regarding the cumulative effect of adding successive extensions and the impact of that upon the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst I have limited information regarding the appeal scheme, this appeal was determined over 25 years ago and the planning policy context since that decision was made has changed, at local and national level. Additionally, given the limited information available, it is not evident whether the scale or design of the extension for the dismissed scheme was similar to that before me to draw comparisons between the two developments. Given the change in policy context and the limited information I have regarding the two schemes, for the reasons given above, I have come to a different conclusion to that given for the previous appeal on this site. 12. The 2025 appeal was dismissed partly on the grounds that the proposal would result in disproportionate additions relative to the size of the original building. In contrast, the current scheme introduces a first-floor side extension that is set back from both the front and side elevations and is neither as tall nor as deep as the previously dismissed design. These reductions in scale, along with other design differences, notably lessen the overall massing and visual impact of the proposal. As a result, I have reached a different conclusion in this instance. 13. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would comply with paragraph 154c) of the Framework and thus would be not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Given that the proposal would be not inappropriate development in the Green Belt it would also comply with Policy G2 of the LP as well as generally be in accordance with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (LP) insofar as they relate to development in the Green Belt. 14. Given that I have determined that the development would be not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it is not necessary to consider the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. Appeal Decision 6000200 4 Character and Appearance 15. The existing property is a substantial two-storey dwelling with a half-hipped roof. It is positioned towards the end of a ribbon of development, with similar properties located on the opposite side of the road. The surrounding houses vary in scale and appearance but are generally set within generously sized plots. As a result, the area exhibits a spacious residential character. 16. The proposed extension above the garage would be approximately half the width of the host dwelling. While the ground floor element involves converting the garage, the addition of a window and mono-pitched roof would increase the perceived scale of the dwelling. However, given that the first-floor extension would project only a short distance beyond the rear wall, be set back from the front elevation, and be narrower than the ground floor addition with a roof significantly lower than the main ridge, the side extension and conversion would remain subordinate to the host dwelling. The crown roof would generally follow the angle of the half-hipped roof of the host dwelling, and the crown roof would limit the overall height of the extension. When appreciated within the street scene, the roof design and use of matching materials would contribute to ensuring the extension would appear visually subservient. 17. The single-storey rear extension would be largely screened from public viewpoints by the dwelling itself. Its modest size, combined with the separation from neighbouring properties, means it would also appear subordinate. Similarly, the proposed porch would be a small-scale addition, replacing a slightly smaller existing porch. The proposed porch would feature a mono-pitched roof, and its design would complement the host dwelling and integrate well with the other proposed extensions. 18. Due to the local pattern of development, the two-storey side extension would be visible within the street scene. While the proposal represents a relatively large increase in footprint, much of this would be at ground floor level and to the rear, reducing its visual impact. Even when viewed from the side, the extensions would only increase the appreciated depth of the property by a modest amount and when compared to other dwellings locally, the extended dwelling would not appear bulky or disproportionately large. Overall, the scale of the extensions would not be disproportionate, and the host dwelling would remain the dominant element. The proposals would maintain the gaps between dwellings and space around the extended dwelling retaining its scale within a large plot, preserving a positive characteristic of the area. Given the varied scale and design of nearby properties and the subordinate appearance of the extensions, the enlarged dwelling would not appear out of character within its surroundings. 19. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies 7 and 26 of the LP and Policy G2 of the London Plan. These seek, amongst other matters, for developments to be of a high architectural quality and design. Living Conditions 20. The neighbouring property at 63 Shepherds Hill (No. 63) is a large two-storey dwelling positioned forward of the appeal property. As a result, the full depth of the appeal property is appreciated from the rear rooms and the conservatory at No. 63. Appeal Decision 6000200 5 However, No. 63 is set back a considerable distance from the shared boundary and is separated from the appeal property by a single-storey outbuilding. The outlook from the rear of No. 63 overlooks the large open garden and is partly enclosed by the existing single storey outbuilding which extends along the shared boundary with the appeal building a similar distance as the appeal property. Whilst 65 Shepherds Hill is a two-storey dwelling and No. 63 sits at a lower ground level, the appeal property does not appear overbearing when viewed from the rear of No. 63, its conservatory, or garden due to the above site characteristics. 21. The proposed two-storey side extension would introduce a two-storey wall less than 2 metres from the shared boundary, which conflicts with the guidance in the SPD. However, due to the site’s characteristics, the extension would be approximately 6.6 metres from the flank wall of No. 63. Taking into account this separation, the established pattern of development, and the fact that the extension would be shorter than the main dwelling and would only extend out a modest distance beyond the rear wall, the proposal would not significantly enclose the outlook from No. 63, its conservatory, or garden. The outlook from the rear of the property would generally be retained with most of the garden unenclosed by development. Consequently, the minor departure from SPD guidance would be acceptable in this instance, given the site-specific circumstances and the design of the side extension. 22. Given the limited scale and siting of the proposed single-storey rear extension, together with the existing outbuilding that sits between the two properties and would screen much of the extension, the proposal would not harmfully enclose the outlook from No. 63. The Council reached a similar conclusion regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 67 Shepherds Hill, and given the modest scale of the rear extension and the difference in ground levels, I find no reason to reach a different view. 23. The 2025 appeal concluded that the previous scheme would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 63. However, as outlined above, the current proposal is notably smaller in scale than the dismissed scheme. The reduced height, width, and depth of the extension ensure that it would not result in an overbearing impact or harm to outlook in this instance. Consequently, these design and scale changes have led me to reach a different conclusion. 24. Therefore, the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 63 and would comply with Policy 7 of the LP. This seeks, amongst other matters, to ensure developments do not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook. Conditions 25. Further to the statutory commencement condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the permitted plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. Furthermore, a condition requiring the materials match those used in the host dwelling is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. 26. The Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. However, given the pattern of development and the different setbacks of the appeal property and those either side, if windows were installed on the flank walls of the extensions, Appeal Decision 6000200 6 this could result in harmful overlooking of the neighbouring properties. Consequently, there is clear justification to restrict permitted development rights in this instance. 27. Given that the roof of the extension is not proposed to be used as a balcony, it is not necessary to state that it cannot be used as one, as permission would be required to do so. Conclusion 28. The proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Sibley INSPECTOR