Single-storey rear extension, raising roof to include rear dormer

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: 22 August 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000378 24 Hamilton Drive, Romford, Havering RM3 0UU • 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 Martyn Bishop against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0298.25. • The development proposed is described as single-storey rear extension, raising roof to include rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 11 Douglas Avenue, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a hipped roof bungalow located at the corner of Hamilton Drive and Douglas Avenue. It has an existing single-storey flat roof side extension that projects approximately 6 metres beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring two-story semi-detached property at 11 Douglas Avenue (No 11), with a gap of around 1 metre to the boundary fence. 4. The proposal involves raising and extending the roof over the existing extension and constructing a large box dormer window facing No 11. 5. While the current extension projects significantly beyond the rear of No 11, its modest height, flat profile, and the difference in ground levels, limit its visual impact. In contrast, the proposed roof extension would introduce a taller and more substantial structure in close proximity to the boundary. The gable end form and vertical dormer face would present a considerable mass at a height that aligns with the first-floor rear windows of No 11. This would result in an increased sense of enclosure and an overbearing presence when viewed from both internal rooms and the rear patio of No 11. 6. The dormer would include bedroom and bathroom windows offering close range views into the rear windows and garden of No 11. While the use of obscure glazing could mitigate the privacy concerns, it would not address the physical impact of the dormer’s bulk and proximity. Appeal Decision 6000378 2 7. I therefore conclude that the development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of 11 Douglas Avenue specifically in relation to outlook. Thus, there is conflict with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2021, which seeks to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 8. The appellant’s desire to adapt their home for a growing family is acknowledged. However, these personal circumstances do not outweigh the identified harm or justify a departure from the development plan. 9. Planning permission (Ref: P1019.16) was previously granted for a roof extension and dormer. However, that scheme featured a hipped end and the dormer did not extend as far beyond the rear of No. 11, thereby avoiding the harmful impacts identified in the current proposal. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed. A Caines INSPECTOR