Loft conversion including rear dormer and rooflights with alterations to roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21st October 2025 by E Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000374 42 Gaynes Park Road, Upminster RM14 2HP • 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 Mr & Mrs Kong against the decision of Havering London Borough Council. • The application Ref is P0171.25. • The development proposed is loft conversion including rear dormer and rooflights with alterations to roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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 description of proposed development on the application form is extensive and includes wording which is not a description of development. For the purposes of the banner heading, I have therefore taken the description of development from the appellant’s appeal submission which reflects the description on the Council’s decision, as this is clearer and more concise. 4. The reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice relates to the proposed rear only. I have therefore defined the main issue on this basis. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the rear dormer on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. Gaynes Park Road is predominantly residential in character, with the exception of a short parade of commercial properties. The dwellings are mainly detached or semi-detached and are more often two-storey in scale. There is some variation in design and form, although roofs are predominantly pitched. Whilst alterations to roofs are relatively common, bulkier additions such as hip-to-gable extensions and dormers are mostly confined to side and rear roof slopes, limiting the effects on the street scene. Consequently, the prevailing scale and overriding pitched profiles at roof level provide order and visual cohesion to the area. Appeal Decision 6000374 2 7. 42 Gaynes Road (No 42) is a detached dwelling located on a corner plot at the junction with Maple Avenue. Given its two-storey scale and simple hipped roof form, it reflects some of the area’s key characteristics and its roofscape positively contributes to the consistency of the street scene. 8. Due to its substantial mass, boxy form and lack of set down at ridge level, the rear dormer would be a bulky addition that would appear discordant with the simple hipped profile of the main roof. It would directly conflict with the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) which sets out that dormers should be located well below ridge lines. Even accounting for the tile cladding indicated on the drawings, the large window would further limit any potential for the dormer to assimilate with the roofscape. Consequently, the dormer would be an unsympathetic addition which would detract from the appearance of No 42 and the local street scene, particularly when viewed from Maple Avenue. 9. I saw that there are several other properties close to the appeal site which feature large rear dormers. In the limited instances where dormers do not positively reflect the materials of their hosts, or are not set well down from the ridge, this does not justify the site-specific harm that would result from the appeal development due to its poor design and very prominent location at the corner of Maple Avenue. 10. I conclude, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) which, amongst other matters, require that residential development is of a high design quality that respects, reinforces and complements the local street scene. Other Matters 11. I acknowledge that the dormer is being sought in order to provide additional internal living space for occupiers of the host dwelling. I have also seen the suggestion that the lack of set down from ridge is to ensure the internal space would be habitable. However, there is nothing to suggest that additional living space could not be provided through an alternative scheme with a less harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. M Russell INSPECTOR