Loft conversion - Hip to gable and side addition for upper staircase

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2025 by A Caines BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2025. Appeal Ref: 6000361 35 Pemberton Avenue, Havering, Romford RM2 6HA • 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 Mrs Carmel Sayer against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0337.25. • The development proposed is loft conversion - Hip to gable and side addition for upper staircase. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The Council raised no objection to the hip-to-gable and rear dormer extensions, and I concur that these elements are acceptable. 3. Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the first-floor side staircase extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. This part of Pemberton Avenue is characterised by a consistent pattern of two-storey semi-detached dwellings, typically joined at ground level by single-storey garages. While some properties have been extended above the garages, such alterations generally maintain the architectural rhythm of the street. 5. Although modest in scale and set back approximately 3 metres from the front elevation, the proposed side staircase extension would be clearly visible from the nearby junction with Hall Road. It’s narrow proportions, flat roof, height above the eaves line, and small front-facing windows, including one at roof level, result in a design that would appear visually discordant and poorly integrated with the host dwelling, notwithstanding the use of matching materials. The design does not reflect the architectural detailing, roof form, or fenestration of the existing property, contrary to the guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011). 6. The appellant contends that the design seeks to minimise bulk and preserve the gap to No 33. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the visual integrity of the host building and the wider street scene. Furthermore, alternative design solutions may exist that achieve the same functional outcome in a less harmful manner. Appeal Decision 6000361 2 7. Accordingly, I find that the staircase extension would constitute a visually discordant addition that fails to respect the architectural integrity of the host building and the established character of the area. This is contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021), which amongst other things seeks high-quality design that respects local context. Other Matters 8. Although the hip-to-gable and rear dormer elements of the proposal are considered acceptable, they are not functionally severable from the harmful staircase extension. As such, it would not be feasible to grant planning permission for only part of the development without compromising the overall functionality of the scheme. Therefore, a split decision cannot be issued in this instance. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. A Caines INSPECTOR