First floor part rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 October 2025 by E Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by Andrew McGlone BSc MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000343 81 Chestnut Avenue, Hornchurch, Havering RM12 4HJ • 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 Md Mahedi Hassan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0373.25. • The development proposed is first floor part rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor part rear extension at 81 Chestnut Avenue, Hornchurch, Havering RM12 4HJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0373.25, and the plans submitted with it, 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 the following plans: Site Location Plan, Drawing No 33004-0 ‘Proposed Plans’, and Drawing No 33005-0 ‘Proposed Elevations’. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building/dwelling. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. The submitted plans show the existing dwelling which has been extended to the side with a two storey extension that projects beyond the original rear elevation of the property. There is also a single storey rear extension with a sloping roof and a dormer extension in the rear roof plane. The two storey side extension has a hipped roof and there is a hipped roof for the two storey rear projection which has a Juliet balcony at first floor. The proposed plans would see the two storey rear projection extended across the rear elevation of the property. A hipped roof would extend across the existing and proposed elements. The sloping roof of the existing ground floor extension would remain. During my site visit I noted a different roof form serving the two storey side/rear extension and a different roof serving the ground floor extension. Fenestration on the existing plans also differed from what I Appeal Decision 6000383 2 observed on site. Notwithstanding my observations on site I have considered and determined the appeal based on the submitted plans. The differences with the submitted plans are a matter for the parties to resolve outside of this appeal. Main Issue 4. The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site sits within a predominantly residential area and sits in a row of terraces that vary in terms of their external façade materials. The appeal dwelling is a two storey, end of terrace dwelling. The dwelling’s facade is described in the council’s report as being covered in pebble dash. However, at the time of my site visit, the property featured cream render to the entirety of its facade. The dwelling has undergone numerous alterations to the side and rear resulting in it being a larger dwelling in comparison to the row of dwellings it sits amongst. A public footpath runs along the side of the site, enabling views of the rear façade of the dwelling visible from the public realm. 6. As set out within the council’s report, the proposal complies with the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) therefore the main issue is concerned with the cumulative effect of the proposed first floor rear extension combined with the existing first floor side extension, by virtue of their overall width and the proposed increase in ridge height. I acknowledge that the property has previously been extended, meaning the proposal would result in a width that exceeds the width of the host property as originally built. However, given that the existing first-floor side extension is already highly visible from the public footpath, I do not consider that extending the first floor extension further would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area more than it already does. 7. The proposal would be set in from the neighbouring boundary and there would be limited visibility of the proposal as it would not extend beyond the existing footprint of the dwelling. The proposal would respond to the host property’s scale and built form and given that it would continue to be set in a sufficient distance from the neighbouring boundary, a degree of subserviency would remain so that the extension would read as an extension to the host dwelling. 8. I conclude that the proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021), and Policy D4 of The London Plan (2021) which, amongst other matters, require development proposals to respect and complement the character of the site and local area. I have also had regard to the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011). Conditions 9. In addition to the standard three-year period implementation condition, which is a statutory requirement, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty, to define the plans with which the appeal scheme should accord. In order to protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host dwelling, I am imposing a Appeal Decision 6000383 3 condition requiring materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development to match those used in the existing building. Whilst the Council has suggested a condition restricting the insertion of any new windows or openings in the flank wall of the extension, I do not consider that, were such an opening to be added, it would materially worsen the degree of overlooking that already occurs from the appeal dwelling into neighbouring rear gardens. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. In accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, decisions must be made in line with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal accords with the development plan, and there are no material considerations that would justify departing from it. Accordingly, the decision should be taken in accordance with the development plan. 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. E Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Andrew McGlone INSPECTOR