Rear/side extensions with first floor rear extension and internal alterations

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: 2 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000394 106 Cranham Gardens, Upminster RM14 1JN • 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 Smith against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0134.25 • The development proposed was originally described as ‘rear/side extensions with first floor rear extension and internal alterations’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single, part two storey side/rear extension and internal alterations with changes/additions to the fenestration and doors at 106 Cranham Gardens, Upminster RM14 1JN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0134.25, 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 approved plans: Drawing Nos 01-C and 03-C. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, no window or other opening (other than those shown on the approved plans) shall be formed in the flank walls of the extensions hereby permitted, unless specific permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. 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. Procedural Matter 3. During the application process, the Council agreed a revised description with the appellants. I have used this more detailed revised description in the decision paragraph in the interests of clarity. Appeal Decision 6000394 2 Main Issue 4. The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. Cranham Gardens features a variety of dwelling types, ranging in design, form and materials. There are a mix of single storey and two-storey dwellings in the area and a prevailing linear pattern with dwellings set back from front boundaries. Many properties can be seen to have undergone alterations. 106 Cranham Gardens is a large two-storey, detached dwelling with an attached garage and a generous amount of garden space to the rear. It is situated between the detached bungalows at 104 and 108 Cranham Gardens (Nos 104 and 108), both of which have single storey rear extensions and back onto long rear gardens. These characteristics give the area a mixed but cohesive suburban character. 6. The extensions would have a discreet presence in views from the street with the mono pitched roof over the side extension retaining a single storey scale to this side. To the rear, the width of the two storey element would match the existing dwelling and its roof would have a complementary hipped profile. Its rear elevation would be closely aligned with the rear extensions at Nos 104 and 108. Together with the subservient appearance of the single storey rear extension, and their matching facing materials, this would ensure a cohesive aesthetic. As a result, the mass of the extensions would suitably blend with the host dwelling and would sit comfortably within the generously proportioned rear garden setting. 7. The Havering Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD) confirms that the acceptable depth of any proposed rear extension will also depend on a number of site-specific considerations. As the parts of the side extension that would be visible from the street would closely reflect the scale of the existing house and garage, and the two-storey rear extension has been carefully designed to respond to its host, it would resonate with some of the key aspects of the SPD. Therefore, any variance from other aspects of the design guidance would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area in this instance. 8. I conclude, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would comply with the requirements in Policies 7 and 26 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan (2021) for development to be of a high design quality and to respect, reinforce and complement the local street scene. Other Matters 9. Any deviance from the guidance in the SPD in terms of the recommended measurements for extensions and a 45-degree line drawn from neighbouring properties would not be harmful to neighbouring living conditions in this instance. This is due to the position of the two-storey extension set away from the side elevations of Nos 104 and 108 as well as the overall development not extending significantly passed the rear elevations of these neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, given its single storey scale and mono-pitched roof, which would reach its maximum ridge height away from the boundary, the side extension would not result in any unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing effects to Appeal Decision 6000394 3 neighbouring occupiers. There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise and the Council has also not identified any detrimental impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Overall, there would be no material effects on outlook or light for neighbouring properties to either side of the appeal site. 10. I note concerns expressed about access to neighbouring property for maintenance and potential damage to buildings outside of the appellant's control during and post development work. These are matters that would need to be resolved between the parties involved and are not a reason to withhold the granting of planning permission. Conditions 11. In addition to the standard three-year period for implementation, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty, to define the plans with which the development should accord. To protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host dwelling, I am attaching a condition requiring materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development to match those used in the existing building. The council’s suggested condition, restricting the formation of any windows or other opening in the flank walls, is also reasonable and necessary to ensure suitable privacy for neighbouring occupiers is retained. However, I have slightly amended the wording to this condition to relate to the extensions only as a more stringent condition relating to the wider building would not be reasonable. 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 allowed. 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 allowed. M Russell INSPECTOR